Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate High School
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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Karate High School
Unknown if this band satisfies notability criteria. Their article is written as an advertisement. Seems to have had some input from a band member - see WP:COI. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. More sources can be found to back up notability of this band, I have removed the advertisement sounding language and personally, I don't think this article had any input from a band member; I think it might have just been a fan, as their username was PaulMcGuirerocks (if that's the editor you're referring to). Seraphim Whipp 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep marginally notable. JJL 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't read like an advertisement (at least not anymore) also doesn't appear to have been written by a band member at all. Best of all it's even cited. I've never heard of them but that means absolutely nothing. People have bothered to post lyrics and tabs online according to a simple Google search, I'll take that to mean they have a decently large following. Hansonc 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Seems somewhat notable, and its been cleaned up a bit since this AfD. - Rjd0060 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:With the tone changed to being objective and there existing notable references (both on the article and from searching for additional information) I would also agree on keeping the article.MatthewYeager 06:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
*comment Taking the above opinions to heart, I'd be willing to revoke my AfD now that the article's tone is improved - as long as some references get added to the article that aren't just Pure Volume or All Music Guide. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and fails notability. The band only has one or two releases, by allowing this band to maintain an entry, 100,000 other bands can justly follow suit. -RiverHockey 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Two album releases satisfy WP:MUSIC notability criteria 5; "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". Seraphim Whipp 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps that should be amended, as I can add entries for thousands of bands with the same qualifications, which would in turn, make a joke out of wikipedia. If they hit the top 100 they might be notable, otherwise wikipedia may be polluted with an enormous quantity of bands/musicians. -RiverHockey 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment - since when was EVO Recordings "one of the more important indie labels"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment - also, before quoting WP:MUSIC, you might want to see whether or not it agrees at all with WP:N, WP:RS, or WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to be rude to me. I am just trying to be helpful. I thought this seemed a pretty ok set of bands, making them a credible indie label... Seraphim Whipp 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have credible external third-party sources that demonstrate that EVO Recordings is "one of the more important indie labels", that is good; if you're merely stating an opinion, that's original research, which doesn't work at Wikipedia. In any case, I wasn't trying to be rude - just asking, if the article could be improved so that it's demonstrably notable, has reliable sources, or is verifiable. Those are minimum criteria, and as people can have good or bad opinions, it's those criteria that we judge the articles by. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's very difficult to judge someone's tone of voice across the internet. I read your tone as coming across rudely but your reply let's me know I have misread it. I have two sources which contain the same content...(a little bizarre...not sure which is the original or which site is considered more reliable) and a third to back-up the importance of the record label, which I shall include here, although they are not much use in the actual article as both sources refer to another band on the EVO Recordings label. Both sources show that the band (Trashlight Vision) is notable, which in turn indicates that their record label, EVO Recordings, is a successful/important indie label. Sources are: [1] and [2]. The source which specifically indicates a level of importance about the label is a story about their website [3] (not sure how reliable either, but it is there). Seraphim Whipp 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have credible external third-party sources that demonstrate that EVO Recordings is "one of the more important indie labels", that is good; if you're merely stating an opinion, that's original research, which doesn't work at Wikipedia. In any case, I wasn't trying to be rude - just asking, if the article could be improved so that it's demonstrably notable, has reliable sources, or is verifiable. Those are minimum criteria, and as people can have good or bad opinions, it's those criteria that we judge the articles by. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to be rude to me. I am just trying to be helpful. I thought this seemed a pretty ok set of bands, making them a credible indie label... Seraphim Whipp 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the tone - most of the time I just try to rush my replies as fast as possible so I can drag myself away from the computer. As for the sources you link above: would it be possible to link them into the article, say as footnotes, instead of posting them to the AfD? To me, when an AfD sees a request to provide sources, it's better if the sources get placed into the article itself - especially as footnotes to claims and assertions in the article. After all, when this AfD is done and gone, the sources should remain with the article to ensure the notability isn't questioned again in the future. Otherwise your work has gone to waste. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, based entirely on the band's having achieved a four-way-tie in the Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands, which satisfies point 9 under WP:MUSIC for musicians & ensembles. I don't believe Evo is a major indie label. The sources supplied above are press releases--see the bottom of these two: here and here. E-Mail Wire is also for press releases, which eliminates this one, too, per WP:RS. According to WP:MUSIC, the test for a label is longevity (more than a few years) and a stable of notable artists. I don't see any indication at the label's "My Space" page that they can make such a claim. The website they point to, here, doesn't seem to be instructive. In fact, it seems to be controlled by a "domain parking service" which utilizes it as a search engine. However, Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands gets 40,000 hits on Google and claims to be the largest battle of the bands contest in the world. There are plenty of reliable sources about it. (And I did add one more source about the contest to the band's article, since I believe this is their sole current claim to notability.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment - Ernie Ball may claim to have the largest battle of the bands contest in the world... but other contests also make that claim (I get spam from them). And if this band's claim to fame is having won an Ernie Ball battle of the bands, why should they not just be mentioned under a Battle of the Bands article? Though, of course, we don't yet have one for the Ernie Ball battle of the bands... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, according to consensus as duly noted by WP:Music, "#9. Has won or placed in a major music competition" is sufficient claim to notability for the band to have an article: :) There seems to be enough out there to presume this is a major music competition. See punktv canada, Premier Guitar Magazine, North Denver News and Gearwire, for example. According to this premium article from "Music Trades", there were 10,000 entrants in the previous year's Battle of the Bands. Over two million people evidently voted in 2002, when the contest was cited as "the world's longest-running and most successful promotion of its kind" here. I've seen the number 13,000 referenced with regards to the one co-won by this band, but this article indicates they only beat 11,996. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that I did say I didn't know how reliable those sources were. I was just using them as a general indication that their label has made another band successful and that it points to them being a successful indie label. I was angling for this part of criteria 5: "a roster of performers, many of which are notable", although it would be much fairer to say that they don't have a roster of successful bands but more like a handful. Great research btw. Seraphim Whipp 12:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, according to consensus as duly noted by WP:Music, "#9. Has won or placed in a major music competition" is sufficient claim to notability for the band to have an article: :) There seems to be enough out there to presume this is a major music competition. See punktv canada, Premier Guitar Magazine, North Denver News and Gearwire, for example. According to this premium article from "Music Trades", there were 10,000 entrants in the previous year's Battle of the Bands. Over two million people evidently voted in 2002, when the contest was cited as "the world's longest-running and most successful promotion of its kind" here. I've seen the number 13,000 referenced with regards to the one co-won by this band, but this article indicates they only beat 11,996. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 4 November 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.
