Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Boom

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. Nishkid64 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Le Boom

Le Boom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

no assertion of meeting criteria of WP:BAND. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true. This has already been discussed on the article's discussion page. From that page:

1. Le Boom is the most popular band ever to appear on Denver's Heartbeat, the largest venue for Colorado indie bands. See my writing below for proof (in 11/22/06 -- updates).

2. Le Boom's album, Got It Tied, received a Critic's Choice endorsement from Westword Magazine, the third largest periodical in the State of Colorado. Proof of this can be found on Westword's web site at: http://search.westword.com/Issues/2004-12-16/music/critics.html 3. The above two are notable accomplishments. 4. The photo threatened with deletion, Leboommainpic.jpg, has now been released as a promotional photo by Le Boom and therefore may be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.

Go back to the article and click on "discussion" for more details on this topic that has already been hashed out after which the article stayed for good reason.

• Delete Appears not to meet notability criteria. I don't understand how it can be documented that a band was the "most popular" ever to appear on a local television show. Yes, the band was mentioned in "Westword," but there don't seem to be any other mentions. It seems that their debut album came out less than a month ago. They may well be a notable band in time, but--barring further documentatation--that time is not now. janejellyroll 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable bands/people who might become notable at some point. This band does not pass WP:BAND.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion page, you would understand how that claim is made. Please read first before making such assertions. The "most popular" claim was made by one of the producers of the show, Denver's Heartbeat, Sherry Lee. Information on how to contact her is also on that discussion page.

From that page: 2) The executive producer of the TV show Denver's Heartbeat has agreed to let me post her e-mail address here. Here name is Sherry Lee and her address is: info@denversheartbeat.com. (This address can be verified at: http://www.denversheartbeat.com/. It is now possible to verify my claim that Le Boom is the most popular band ever to appear on Denver's Heartbeat, the largest venue for Colorado indie bands.

I shouldn't have to cut and paste from the original discussion page. You should have read that first.

Please read the discussion page first! This has all already been discussed. Those who marked it for deletion and then jumped into this discussion without reading the prior discussion are being irresponsible.

I did read the discussion page first. I am just unconvinced by your arguments. I'm assuming good faith on your part, please return the favor. It appears that the "most popular" claim is original research since you cannot cite a published source for it. And I did make a mistake about the release date of the album. However, I'm not sure that the fact that the album was released in 2004 instead of 2006 helps your case that the band is notable. Please don't take this personally. A nomination for deletion is not a statement on the quality of the band. Just the notability at this moment. janejellyroll 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion page first! Go back to the article and click on "discussion." This was already resolved back then.

Also, their debut album came out in December of '04, as is documented in the Westword article. I don't know where you're getting last month.

Please remain civil and avoid repeating and bolding all your arguments. Also, someone named Sherry Lee is not a reliable source. And, please sign your posts with ~~~~ or editors will not be inclined to take you seriously.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bolding because people didn't bother to read the previous discussion. I'm being entirely reasonable by expecting people to read what has been written about this before. This has all already been discussed, and my frustration that people charge ahead with deletion claims without reading the prior discussion is extremely reasonable. I'm having to repeat what I've already shown last November. I shouldn't have to.

Sherry Lee's name is on the Denver's Heartbeat web site as a producer of the show. The information on how to contact her is both there and in the previous discussion of this article and now on this page too. You have all the means you need to check all this out, including e-mailing her.

tomzc

Your incorrect assumption that people who disagree with you do so because they haven't yet read your argument is compounded by the fact that you appear to have not read any of wikipedia's basic policy pages. Notability and verifiability must come from non-trivial, published third party sources, not by a person with a connection to the subject (someone who has produced one of their gigs, for example) who must be emailed for verification. If Sherry Lee writes an article in the Denver Post explaining how popular this band is, it would go a long way toward helping its chances on wikipedia. Also, if you continue to ignore requests to sign your posts with four tildes, you will open yourself up to accusations of bad faith.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Westword article is a published source and is not a trivial one as the third largest newspaper in Colorado (behind the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News, two publications owned by the same company). You can verify with no problems that Le Boom did indeed get a critic's choice endorsement. And Denver's Heartbeat is not a trivial television program either, at least not locally. And there's no requirement that a media source be national. The opinion of the producer of such a television show is indeed relevant and noteworthy. That someone may have to contact the person is a minor amount of effort, and is a basic requirement of any reputable publication. I didn't interpret Wikipedia's policies to mean that no one should ever have to put any effort into fact verification other than googling.

I had good reason to believe that people didn't bother to read the prior discussion. It was stated: I don't understand how it can be documented that a band was the 'most popular' ever to appear on a local television show. It wasn't stated, "Sherry Lee's opinion is not enough." It was stated simply, "I don't understand..." If you had read the prior discussion, you would have understood. You now claim you did read it. I don't buy that, and neither would any reasonable person.

My arguments made in the prior discussion were sufficient to keep the article published in November. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this now. A decision was already made back then and we should stick with it. I did forget to sign my posts, thinking that my user name would automatically be put in as is the case on most Internet discussion forums. I'm sorry for that. 24.9.0.220 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)TomZC

Let me take a minute to (civilly) dissect several of TomZC's arguements. Firstly, there is no policy whatsoever that previous discussions on the merit of an article are permanently binding. Secondly, while a thorough editor would read a discusion page before commenting on an AfD, this is not by any means a requirement. Evidence that a subject is notable must be either a part of the article itself, or raised on the AfD page and subsequently added, sourced, to the article, for it to count. And thirdly, having to call or e-mail someone to verify information is too much to ask, because we have to remember that these sources are not just for the benefit of diligent editors who regularly contribute to the project, but to all users. If a piece of information takes too much effort to track down and verify, it is increasingly unlikely that anyone will do so, and if that information is incorrect, it is more likely to remain uncorrected and be republished incorrectly. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC at this point. I wish the band the best of luck in attaining sufficient notability in the future, however. Resolute 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Resolute. --Haemo 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nowhere near WP:MUSIC at the moment. Nuttah68 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Boldly based on the fact that they don't seem to have had any last.fm plays. Any modern band with /no/ last.fm plays is clearly non-notable IMO. (now watch people insult my credibility because I'm from an IP addy) -137.222.10.67 12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MUSIC is a more useful criterion for notability than last.fm, which only concerns itself with music from certain parts of the world recorded in the last 50 years. --Charlene 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, nothing wrong with pointing it out a la the Google test, which is also unofficial. But one should cite policy in making one's argument. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Larry laptop 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Based on the above arguments and those on the discussion page, the band appears to fail WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Avalon 07:57, 14 January 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.