Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dupobs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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--Jersey Devil 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dupobs
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 and deleted, but restoration requested so I'm bringing it here. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely-notable band before they were barely-famous. There are only 49 Google hits in total, 35 of which are unique, none of which appears to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If non-trivial coverage is an overriding criterion, then I agree, as I cannot locate any press about Dupobs, and indeed the google hits are as you describe, for what that's worth.
But since this is a guideline open to interpretation and flexibility, we should consider the case on its merits, and according to criteria relevant in the world of music. The criteria for Notability:Music apply here, don't they? Reading the article would indicate that the crossover in band membership is current (a simple perusal of the relevant band URLs confirms this) - even though that shouldn't matter -, so the charge that the 'sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely notable (sic) band' is incorrect (emphasis added).
As regards the band upon which Dupobs relies for its claim to Notability, I don't know what you mean by 'barely-famous', but I had thought fame was not a criterion for Notability. And if said band satisfies Notability (by association with other undisputed notables, and by multiple, nontrivial coverage in independent, reliable sources), I fail to see how you can make the claim that this constitutes "barely-notable". I don't know what that concept means; I cannot find a definition for it in Wikipedia's guidelines. Do we really need to create such categories? --Jeandjinni 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed: notability and fame are exclusive. And seeing as fame is not a criterion for notability, the article should not be deleted. I doubt a deletion would be considered were dupobs to comprise a member from a famous (not just notable) musical group. Also keep in mind that searching the internet is not necessarily an effective means to determine notability for musical groups that were in existence, and ceased to be active, before the proliferation of the internet, as was the case for another music group (not the one meeting notability criteria) comprising one of dupobs' members (see article). Consider also the cross-reference to PRISM international, which, according to its website, has published works by highly notable authors such as Jorge Luis Borges and Margaret Atwood. Interestingly, there's no article for PRISM international on Wikipedia. So who's to determine what's notable or not? The article should stay.
- Per policy, we can't have an article without sources. Per policy we are not a directory. So per policy we ask for multiple non-trivial sources. We clarify that in the notability guideline, which explains it all in some detail and represents a distillation of many thousands of deletion debates. No sources = no article. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Guy, as has been argued before elsewhere - doesn't the lack of any sources make this a case of verifiability (not notability)? Anyway, if this rule were applied to a jazz ensemble of fifty years ago, would the case be viewed differently? I know what an encyclopedia is; I just want to help make a better one. To me that encyclopedia would include marginal, specialized music that is "notable" in circles where specialized cultural or aesthetic knowledge (like specialized scientific knowledge, which is protected on similar grounds) is required to assess the music's notability. There's plenty of outside music that could be considered "notable" on artistic criteria alone, and which is the result of twice-or-thrice removed collaborations between musicians who work in other projects, written about in respected publications long out of print and never digitized. This music surely did not not exist! I also understand the need to keep out the garage bands, the false starts, and the fictions and I forcefully agree with that reasoning. But surely the Music Notability guidelines (and we can debate how these could be refined on that page to account for this) should reflect and respect the logics of particular music scenes and traditions, rather than rest on a simple reiteration of the "verifiability" criterion, which could throw out a huge chunk of important music.--Jeandjinni 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, the two are inextricably linked. A notable subject will have sufficient sources to be verifiable, a subject verifiable form multiple non-trivial sources is likely to be notable. I have yet to see an example of a subject which has multiple independent non-trivial sources but which is not notable. This is not an article about a jazz band from fity years ago, it's about a band from right now which has no independent sources. There are folk muscians now with negligible Google presence, but these are not folk musicians, theya re argued to be a significant rock band. No evidence of significance is presented. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, plenty of corporate-funded musical entities build whole careers on multiple purportedly 'independent non-trivial sources' without otherwise establishing Notability by any aesthetic criteria. I know that relying on sources is convenient (esp. considering the number of nn band articles that should be deleted), but the problem with using sources as a basis of distinction is that the independence and non-triviality of many sources can be in question. Are we to accept that a magazine such as Rolling Stone deserves its italics when it is arguably not much more than an advertiser-supported PR gallery for large record companies, essentially a "Billboard" with a bit of critical artifice? Secondly, that it's not a jazz or folk ensemble is precisely the point. There are different standards of Notability in different genres, which is (or ought to be) the rationale for the more open guidelines specific to music articles. 'Avant garde rock' is the genre in question, not 'rock'. No one's arguing that the Dupobs are Notable in the same way that Led Zeppelin is. The yardstick used should be different. --Jeandjinni 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing for us to have articles on bands because you think they are good, not because there are independent sources on which an article can be based. It doesn't work that way. A young performer I heard recently, Etienne Cutajar, has more talent in his little finger than the average boy band has in its entire collective body, but there are no sources (well, one, but it's in the journal of the British Horn Society so not widely circulated), so no article. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, where did I ever say I thought Dupobs was good? I agree that Dupobs doesn't satisfy verifiability - that's an objective test. However, I disagree that Notability is the same thing for all musical genres or subcultures. There are other criteria I've suggested (aesthetics, relation to various traditions, coverage in dead press), but no one seems interested in talking about that. I agree with the proposed deletion on the grounds of verifiability, not on the grounds of notability. Further, in the hypothetical example you've cited, why would you think wide circulation mattered? As I've suggested in a more general sense previously, wouldn't the deletion of the Etienne Cutajar article constitute bias of Wikipedia in favour of coverage by commercial publications? Surely you wouldn't go that far?--Jeandjinni 01:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing for us to have articles on bands because you think they are good, not because there are independent sources on which an article can be based. It doesn't work that way. A young performer I heard recently, Etienne Cutajar, has more talent in his little finger than the average boy band has in its entire collective body, but there are no sources (well, one, but it's in the journal of the British Horn Society so not widely circulated), so no article. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, plenty of corporate-funded musical entities build whole careers on multiple purportedly 'independent non-trivial sources' without otherwise establishing Notability by any aesthetic criteria. I know that relying on sources is convenient (esp. considering the number of nn band articles that should be deleted), but the problem with using sources as a basis of distinction is that the independence and non-triviality of many sources can be in question. Are we to accept that a magazine such as Rolling Stone deserves its italics when it is arguably not much more than an advertiser-supported PR gallery for large record companies, essentially a "Billboard" with a bit of critical artifice? Secondly, that it's not a jazz or folk ensemble is precisely the point. There are different standards of Notability in different genres, which is (or ought to be) the rationale for the more open guidelines specific to music articles. 'Avant garde rock' is the genre in question, not 'rock'. No one's arguing that the Dupobs are Notable in the same way that Led Zeppelin is. The yardstick used should be different. --Jeandjinni 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, the two are inextricably linked. A notable subject will have sufficient sources to be verifiable, a subject verifiable form multiple non-trivial sources is likely to be notable. I have yet to see an example of a subject which has multiple independent non-trivial sources but which is not notable. This is not an article about a jazz band from fity years ago, it's about a band from right now which has no independent sources. There are folk muscians now with negligible Google presence, but these are not folk musicians, theya re argued to be a significant rock band. No evidence of significance is presented. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, as has been argued before elsewhere - doesn't the lack of any sources make this a case of verifiability (not notability)? Anyway, if this rule were applied to a jazz ensemble of fifty years ago, would the case be viewed differently? I know what an encyclopedia is; I just want to help make a better one. To me that encyclopedia would include marginal, specialized music that is "notable" in circles where specialized cultural or aesthetic knowledge (like specialized scientific knowledge, which is protected on similar grounds) is required to assess the music's notability. There's plenty of outside music that could be considered "notable" on artistic criteria alone, and which is the result of twice-or-thrice removed collaborations between musicians who work in other projects, written about in respected publications long out of print and never digitized. This music surely did not not exist! I also understand the need to keep out the garage bands, the false starts, and the fictions and I forcefully agree with that reasoning. But surely the Music Notability guidelines (and we can debate how these could be refined on that page to account for this) should reflect and respect the logics of particular music scenes and traditions, rather than rest on a simple reiteration of the "verifiability" criterion, which could throw out a huge chunk of important music.--Jeandjinni 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added so the article is verifiable. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete since there is still no assertion of notability. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:18, 4 February 2007 (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.
