Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devastations
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. John254 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Devastations
I put a Proposed Deletion tag on this band, it was removed on the grounds that because they had been signed to a record label that had signed many notable bands that was sufficient to show notability for this band, The Devastations. I then asked for a source on that, and was reverted by (I think) a good faith editor. As it stands, the article has no sources besides the band's own website and their myspace page. I'm a little concerned by what I shall now call "creeping notability" in music articles. By the reasoning I've been reading about, if Group A had a musician from a notable Group B sit in on some recording sessions, Group A is now notable. Then, by extension and WP:MUSIC, all the albums of Group A are notable, and according to some editors, don't even need sources to abide by WP:V. Similarly, if Group C, a band of teenagers in a garage that never recorded any albums at all, had one member that went on to join notable Group D, Group C can have a Wikipedia page due to a sort of backwards notability. Furthermore, all side projects of musicians from notable groups are notable according to WP:MUSIC, even if they had no success. Whatever happened to requiring that each article have independent, third-party sources for notability? My edits may have attracted attention, I hope that argumentation here will be restricted to interpretation of policies and guidelines. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Multiple albums on two more-than-notable record labels meet WP:BAND. tomasz. 11:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If only there were sources to verify that. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeh, that's a problem to be addressed, but if the article states it happened we have no reason to suspect it's misinformation. Lack of sources is no kind of criterion for deletion, it's a criterion for adding more sources. tomasz. 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except some of them are laboring under the misapprehension that no sources whatsoever are needed. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeh, that's a problem to be addressed, but if the article states it happened we have no reason to suspect it's misinformation. Lack of sources is no kind of criterion for deletion, it's a criterion for adding more sources. tomasz. 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If only there were sources to verify that. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Devastations have released two albums on Beggars Banquet Records, a major indie label. As stated above, WP:BAND dictates this is sufficient to denote notability. The lack of sources is not grounds per se for deletion. And I don't care too much for the nominator's fixation with "creeping notability". Grimhim (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not to mention that this is not the appropriate place to discuss it. tomasz. 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would somebody care to direct me to where we should discuss it? Or would it be okay with you guys if I went back to tagging articles that don't have sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not to mention that this is not the appropriate place to discuss it. tomasz. 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The group has plenty of independent third party press. Rolling Stone Germany named their album the best of the year, and they won an award in Australia in 2004. [1] Chubbles (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note The source presented by Chubbles isn't about them being signed to a label, but is an AMG entry that says that independent, third-party sources have said the band is important. These are the kind of sources non-music-related articles are required to have, and (I believe) music-related article should have too. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough band. Nominator is correct that the article should have independent, third-party sources, but the lack of sources should have been addressed by adding an appropriate tag rather than proposing deletion. The coverage is out there for anyone prepared to look. This isn't the place to discuss whether or not the WP:MUSIC guidelines are correct.--Michig (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did add the tag, but User:Grimhim kept removing it! And he opened an AN/I on me for daring to tag articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first tag you put on the article was a prod tag, which anyone objecting to deletion was entitled to remove. You then put a fact tag against the record label in the infobox - something that you could have easily verified yourself e.g. by searching on Amazon. If your concern was a lack of references in the article as a whole, an {{Unreferenced}} tag would have been more appropriate. I've added it.--Michig (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rephrase User:Grimhim kept removing my reliablesources tags from other articles, driving me to distraction and causing me to believe that all my tags would be removed without sources being added. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to restore them as long as the tags are appropriate. If you feel another editor is removing such tags in bad faith, perhaps you should seek assistance from an admin? Editors are not obliged to make improvements in order to remove speedy deletion or prod tags however, so I would recommend these are only used when the subject of an article is non-notable, rather than due to general deficiencies e.g. in references. Just my opinion.--Michig (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- We've both learned from this, I think. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to restore them as long as the tags are appropriate. If you feel another editor is removing such tags in bad faith, perhaps you should seek assistance from an admin? Editors are not obliged to make improvements in order to remove speedy deletion or prod tags however, so I would recommend these are only used when the subject of an article is non-notable, rather than due to general deficiencies e.g. in references. Just my opinion.--Michig (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rephrase User:Grimhim kept removing my reliablesources tags from other articles, driving me to distraction and causing me to believe that all my tags would be removed without sources being added. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first tag you put on the article was a prod tag, which anyone objecting to deletion was entitled to remove. You then put a fact tag against the record label in the infobox - something that you could have easily verified yourself e.g. by searching on Amazon. If your concern was a lack of references in the article as a whole, an {{Unreferenced}} tag would have been more appropriate. I've added it.--Michig (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did add the tag, but User:Grimhim kept removing it! And he opened an AN/I on me for daring to tag articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the band satisifies the notability requirements - have released several albums on notable labels (these releases are both in Australia & Europe) - there are plenty of independent third party sources on the band. Dan arndt (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - notable per WP:MUSIC, which says they need albums. Sources proving this are not required directly. Also, have won an award etc. per Chubbles and the AMG source. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep - It meets the minimum of the minimum requirements for WP:MUSIC, but needs at least one secondary source that proves this. That can be as simple as an AMG link, which evidentially exists, but needs to be added. I disagree with the statement by dihydrogen monoxide that "sources proving this are not required directly" - they are per WP:V.—Torc. (Talk.) 09:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: The article already establishes notability with its major label album releases and The Age awards nomination. The band does have a presence on AMG, but I'm not sure how this would be applied as a source on the band article: wouldn't an AMG link usually be used on an album article? Grimhim (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I routinely use AMG bios as sources for popular music articles; it's one of the best sources out there. Chubbles (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me make a distinction between asserting notability and establishing notability. The problem is (or was) that although the article said the band had albums on Beggars, it didn't have any WP:V-level proof. Until recently, there were no sources whatsoever that proved anything the article said or even that the band existed; even a link to the band profile in AMG or to their page (if they have one) on the Beggars Banquet site in an infobox would have been sufficient. Granted, the information in the article was probably true, which is why I voted "weak keep" instead of delete. The article is fine now, and I'm sure it'll be kept, but I don't find any fault with the nominator for tossing it up here given the way the notability tag was stripped away. Editors who do stuff like remove tags or go really aggressively claim that a topic is notable without added evidence are probably going to get pretty defensive reactions. —Torc. (Talk.) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I routinely use AMG bios as sources for popular music articles; it's one of the best sources out there. Chubbles (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notability seems to rely on Beggars Banquet Records. Article on Beggars Banquet has no references. If that article is true and Coal is a full length release then band satisfies WP:MUSIC by having released two or more albums on a important indie label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment is this a sockpuppet? It's doppelganging Blast Ulna's contributions...
Chubbles (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Chubbles, why don't you ask for a usercheck if you suspect sockpuppetry? Is it so hard to believe that two editors might actually believe in WP:V? Blast Ulna (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Smells strongly of sockpuppetry. Duff's Wiki account started today; his contributions are all about articles Blast Ulna nominated for deletion on Feb 12/13.Grimhim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I demand that you ask for a checkuser on this guy and me! I don't want to have any taint of sockpupperty on me. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- What have I done that anyone would want to use a sockpuppet far? If I was a sockpuppet for Blast Ulna would I paste a comment the disagrees with his position? Grimhim, do you find that blatent lies help you win arguments? Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I demand that you ask for a checkuser on this guy and me! I don't want to have any taint of sockpupperty on me. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Smells strongly of sockpuppetry. Duff's Wiki account started today; his contributions are all about articles Blast Ulna nominated for deletion on Feb 12/13.Grimhim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Chubbles, why don't you ask for a usercheck if you suspect sockpuppetry? Is it so hard to believe that two editors might actually believe in WP:V? Blast Ulna (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Both this article and the Beggars Banquet Records article are now referenced. I think we can close this as a keep now, since nobody seems inclined towards deletion.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 15 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.
