Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patchouli (band)

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. I have removed one extremely long comment as mostly a copyvio, it can be checked in the history. Fram 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patchouli (band)

Patchouli (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Self-published band that does not seem to have any non-trivial mentions in independent notable sources. Google search for their most recent album results in 92 hits; the previous album results in 171. Members' previous bands (Aunt Betsy, Be Safe Be Seen) do not appear to be notable either. {{Notability}} tag removed. ... discospinster talk 18:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to make it clear that I am also nominating the following articles:
... discospinster talk 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Interesting that citation tags were just removed several times without discussion or explanation. Bksimonb 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All of 'em. No sign of notability. MarkBul 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Richard, please do not "vote" more than once in this discussion, and note that restoring a deleted article will bring you dangerously close to vandalism. bikeable (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Response: As you noted, you are not familiar with Wiki policy. The first tag, asking for citations, contains a link that suggests self-published websites are not usually considered reliable sources, and that third-party publications would be better evidence of notability. The {{Notability}} that I placed contains a link that clearly lists the criteria for notability of musicians (e.g., "subject of multiple non-trivial published works") . If there are "countless articles written about Patchouli all over the Internet", the tag would encourage you to include them in the article. Instead, the tag was removed without explanation.
Secondly, the author of the page was User:Fleet Pete and I did in fact place a notice on his/her talk page, here. ... discospinster talk 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I am sympathetic to the WP:MUSIC issues associated with a band that is running on its own and has its own label; these folks appear to have been around quite a while and played a lot. However, aside from the Radish article, which has its own notability problems, I see little evidence of notability. I would encourage supporters like Richard1959 to add more references to published reviews or articles, preferably in recognizable media. Number of shows played and number of albums self-released are not likely to satisfy notability, at least under current standards. Non-trivial media references are the way to go here. bikeable (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While not a major act, the very thing that makes them notable as per the first of Wikipedia's band notability criteria is that they are clearly documented by easily recognizable national media sources. That said, some better citation and actual links would bolster their case. The fact that an independent group has achieved this attention from hard work is certainly a case for notability that separates them from bedroom musicians using false or unprovable claims to gain a Wikipedia entry for publicity purposes. I'd say the article is in need of revision and firmer citation, but not deletion. Dead-Air 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What "easily recognizable national media sources" do you have in mind? A three-word mention in the Tallahassee Democrat hardly counts! bikeable (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Vanity non-notable band. Keb25 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
comment I think User:Richard1959 must be connected personally to this band; there is thus a conflict of interest with respect to this discussion of deletion. Even under the Maiden Rock, Wisconsin page there were attempts to include Patchouli. I guess if he is well connected to the band there should be more notable reviews available that he is aware of.Wildwalleye 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Richard, when adding sources, could you provide a link to the original web page or a date or other information that would allow others to verify it? A sentence fragment out of context isn't a reliable source. It does seem that Patchouli has had some media attention, but it's hard to tell how much from these excerpts. Thanks. bikeable (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Might I remind Keb25 and everyone else that WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest explicitly discourages use of the term "vanity" in discussions about any article, under the general principle of WP:AGF. Bondegezou 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for the Aunt Betsy pages. I know little of the Patchouli duo except that they are in fact an active band (check out their website including tour info). As for Aunt Betsy, can someone explain the rationale for the deletion of these pages? Although the band is long gone one of the CDs is still for sale. I started the pages, but received no comments on my talk page. One of the criteria on the WP:MUSIC page is that "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" (although this is apparently a disputed criteria). It is clear that both of these bands have had national tours. Comments? Wildwalleye 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Wildwalleye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Ok, I'm responding to myself. It seems that Patchouli is pretty small-time. If you follow the WP:MUSIC guidelines I would agree that it doesn't qualify as notable. Wildwalleye
Comment. How do Aunt Betsy satisfy the music notability criteria? There is nothing in the article that addresses anything on the list, and a quick search of Google does not bring anything up either. The article just says that they're a folk group with three albums and the following members. ... discospinster talk 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree then. Aunt Betsy (and Patchouli for that matter) do not satisfy any notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. Under the reasoning stated under the AfD, it should be deleted then. As a side note, wish I knew about this before spending time creating an entry (my first). The guidelines under WP:MUSIC are there for a reason a seem to work quite well. However, it also seems important to document other, lesser known and independent bands (I'm not referring to every high school garage band) that do not sign with major labels (indy or otherwise). Perhaps this information can be conveyed in a more general article and not under the categories addressed under the notability guidelines. I don't know. Wildwalleye 17:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, does the fact that I do not have any other edits (indicated by the sig bot above) have any impact on deletion?Wildwalleye 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it does, in this case. ... discospinster talk 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
comment Ok, given the citation below by User:Richard1959, I think there is enough to justify notability. The Pulse is a decent music newspaper for the Twin Cities. The 2-3 newspapers also represent credible sources and indicate a legitimate band. Wildwalleye 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 64.53.142.175 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Richard: I'd like to see the Patchouli/AB page stay as well, but so far there has been nothing notable presented. I can't find any newspaper articles on AB, for example, since it was from the mid-90's. I've been looking for Patchouli articles too to help you out. In the end, if there are credible sources, the article should stay. I'll keep looking; you do the same. Wildwalleye 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reviews show notability (from Richard1959).

<REMOVED COMMENT SITUATED HERE>

  • Weak delete - I agree with bikable, I am sympathetic but see little evidence of notability. Sorry, but for me, it's a delete. Irishjp 12:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable per WP:MUSIC. Nothing amongst the extensive cutting and pasting offers an indication of notability. Numerous gigs at local coffee outlets and libraries implies the opposite. Nuttah68 19:28, 1 October 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.