Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ River

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as unsourced. There is no agreement on whether the subject meets the "major radio station" criterion of WP:MUSIC, but there is also no counterevidence against the claim that the article cannot be sourced from independent sources, and thus the article fails WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DJ River

DJ River (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable internet-only DJ. Precious Roy (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe he is non-notable, but him being internet-only is the interesting part. His origins stem back from the times where internet-only electronic music was both rare and of low-bitrate (see article). I vote to keep article. Fire (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; WP:INTERESTING is not an argument to notability and verifiability. We need to see sources, especially for a topic like this where the subject sounds distinctly amateur and unrecognized. I would reverse my opinion if any clearly independent, reliable, in-depth sources are presented. I searched briefly and found only self-provided profiles and individual (blog-like) comments. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the applicable notability guideline is WP:BAND, and subject meets the following criteria:
  • "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."

JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Are you referring to the internet radio station of questionable notability? Definitely not a "major radio network". Additionally, claim of frequent play on that website is not sourced. Precious Roy (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• What?' Digitally Imported has over 60,000 concurrent listeners. How is that not major? As for sources for play on DI.FM, did you look? here, here, here, here. And for another internet radio network, last.fm: here and here. Remember he is a self-described internet-only DJ.... logically, if you acknowledge the possibility that there could exist a notable internet-only DJ, you have to admit that you could not find sources documenting regular "airplay" (bitplay?) for such DJ that were not on or about internet radio websites. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I went to the DI website and found no search capability. And that "60,000 listeners" figure is according to the station itself, not a third-party source like Arbitron. I can't follow the logic of your last sentence but I know how admins like you are so I'll just leave now. Precious Roy (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Precious Roy here. 60,000 listeners is not nearly the kind of audience a national network would reach: According to some free stuff from Arbitron, national radio networks have a reach of around 70% among Americans, which would average easily to millions of listeners each. Mangojuice^talk 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Placed in rotation nationally on a network that has millions of listeners would not equate to listened-to simultaneously by millions of people. It means that an individual radio station would play it, then another one, then another one. and so on. This would probably equate to under a thousand at a time, (that's my own synthesis) but repeated in different locales frequently. The spirit of this is that a lot of people would be familiar with it. A 60K instantaneous listener-load network would provide the same huge exposure that that guideline is describing; and hence a lot of poeple would be familiar with it, IMHO. Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) about whether online radio networks meet the intention of this guideline, would be appropriate? JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're trying to stretch the guideline, and I don't think it should stretch. After all, the real question is whether or not there is source material we can use to write a reasonable article here. Guidelines like the one you are trying to use here give evidence that a certain subject is likely to be sourceable, but the more we stretch the less likely that is. In this case, please, try to find some sources. I came up blank, when you discount individual fan posts on blogs and forums, and his self-posted profiles. Mangojuice^talk 06:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to stretch the guideline, I am trying to apply it. Please participate in the separate discussion I have started at the project talk page I described above. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Non-broadcast radio networks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point: your sources only show that DI radio has at some point featured this guy, which isn't the same thing as being in rotation. Can you source that he is or was actually in rotation at some point? Mangojuice^talk 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... we can only accept radio networks that maintain searchable archived playlists? I doubt there are many that do. The link I provided shows one time when he was featured... meaning an entire show slot was dedicated to him, and he was interviewed, his bio and work was criticized, etc. As far as play.... all we have is ooodles of DI.fm blogs, where people talk about "I just listened to DJ River..." frequently over a long period of time. Blogs are not by themselves a reliable source; but logically would all these people be talking on DI.fm blogs and forums about having listened to him there, if he was not played there? Try a focussed google search, like this. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Published playlists wouldn't be a good source. Here's the kind of thing we should be looking for: [1] -- that's an article that talks about someone being in rotation, "heavy rotation on VH1" in this case. As for lots of individual non-reliable comments, the community has repeatedly rejected using that kind of thing as a source. Mangojuice^talk 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• An aside. I just put the Afd tag back on the article Keeper | 76 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops... oldafd tag removed as well. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the spirit of WP:MUSIC, and arguably by the letter as well--I strongly dispute that the clause regarding radio networks was intended to include online-only stations, and either way that's pretty weak as the only claim of notability for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep --Flesh-n-Bone 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote. What is your reasoning? Mangojuice^talk 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I think he is notable and passes WP:N. --Flesh-n-Bone 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll be adding references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to the article, then, I trust? --Stormie (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently at a break and not editing, so I don't really bother adding and taking out things. --Flesh-n-Bone 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete lack of independent sources to establish notability, fails WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to understand how anyone could possibly vote delete. The article itself asserts notability, further notability has been presented, and the deletion arguments are in blatant disregard of WP:DEGRADE. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lack of even one reliable, independent source? That's my argument. Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please show me one policy that says notability can *only* be asserted through sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about the part of WP:V which reads "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about all the elements of WP:MUSIC that don't ask for sources, like "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - which applies to this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Policy > guideline. And I've yet to see a single reliable source that proves that statement you just made? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per Jerry, WP:DEGRADE, and an apparent disregard for a correct closure. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, only claim of notability is being in rotation on an internet radio station which as Andrew Lenahan said, fails "the spirit of WP:MUSIC, and arguably by the letter as well", and which is itself completely lacking in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I think DI's scale cannot be compared with a public broadcast radio station, especially considering the medium and the genre of music. I have yet to hear a single ambient/electronic radio station (Jazz doesn't count), and I live in a major city. Fire (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Struck bolding; duplicate comment (see top) Mangojuice^talk 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, sorry. I thought I messed up my formatting when I typed it out. Fire (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- a point of fact that may be relevant here. Digitally Imported is not a single broadcast but rather has about 45 separate channels all playing different stuff; this is according to the article and their website. The 60 thousand simultaneous listeners number was for all channels combined: thus, we're talking about more like 1400 listeners at once for the average channel. Seemingly DJ River is being played mostly on only two of these channels: "Chillout" and "Lounge" (according to Jerry's targeted google search). Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Even after some weeks of discussion no one has been able to come up with a single independent source. And about the content, let me repeat my comment from the talk page two weeks ago: A sentence like "DJ River's popularity stems from the fact that the tracks in his mixes are selected with great care, and often form a cohesive whole, with nearly-transparent transitions between tracks in a mix" is not only unfounded, but almost devoid of information - most good electronic music DJs select the tracks they play with care and try to create a continuous mix. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.