Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggerman (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. Wizardman 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triggerman (band)

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

Apparently non-notable band. No albums, touring only in support of others, no independent refs: appears to fail all the tests in WP:BAND BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Triggerman are currently on hiatus and have promised to release an album on their return. They have toured extensively and have supported numerous and somewhat more established bands. The band, by its very existence is notable and having toured and released several EPs, satisfy the requirements that one must meet in order to be deemed notable. Ryannus (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have since added the band's first album and will build upon to the article in order to fully satisfy the guidelines. Having added the reference and instance of the album, I request that the tag be removed. Thanks. Ryannus (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but an assertion that "The band, by its very existence is notable" doesn't meet any of the notability criteria.
  • I still see no evidence of any substantial coverage in reliable sources; the references provided are either to the band's own website or to hobbyist websites.
  • EPs are not relevant: the criteria in WP:MUSIC refers to "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"; note albums, not EPs.
  • Having toured in support of other bands does not (missing word inserted) meet the test in WP:MUSIC that they "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour"
Still looks to me like a clear delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Notability guidelines specify that "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria", therefore, the band are notable and thus the article does not require deletion . Ryannus (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have provided no evidence that they meet any of those criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that meeting any one of the notability criterion asserts that the band is indeed notable. You even said so yourself: "Having toured in support of other bands does meet the test in WP:MUSICthat they "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour""Ryannus (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guideline which you quote. It requires "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour". Where is that non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international tour? Show us the reference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I had left out the "not". Now inserted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
At this point, the only ref for their tour is this link to their own website. That's not non-trivial independent coverage in a reliable source (it's a dead link to their own website). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The band toured with Dragonforce, Orange Goblin and Mastodon, separately and as such they received considerable non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. However, due to the fact that the tours took place a number of years ago, it has been rather difficult to ascertain said coverage online. (Leaving out words doesn't make for good discussions! :)) Ryannus (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more than an assertion that they received coverage, we need evidence of it. Good luck in finding the refs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a number of sources, which I have just found. There are more, because I remember reading a few in magazines including AU Magazine. Ryannus (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So far you appear to have added:
Still not enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely The Ulster Herald is a reliable source? It was founded in 1901, meaning that it is over 100 years old with a circulation across greater Ulster. It is part of a newspaper conglomerate North West of Ireland Printing and Publishing Company and it is the main printing press in the region. Fame Magazine is also a relatively well known magazine which provides an insight into culture around Ireland, the blogspot, I assume was merely a temporary website until famemagazine.co.uk was live. Ryannus (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V#Reliable_sources. It doesn't look to me like these two measure up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How not exactly? Ryannus (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Ulster Herald ref is not substantial, so it doesn't matter much where it's published, but a low-circulation weekly paper hardly meets the test of a "mainstream newspaper". WP:V#Reliable_sources notes that "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is", and few local circulation tabloid weekly newspapers apply much scrutiny: they usually have a small staff working rapidly under pressure, and their reporting tends to be more of the "we have been told" variety than the carefully-researched-and0-checked variety.
Similarly, the blog entry doesn't meet the scrutiny test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If I can find the old magazine articles, is it possible that the article will remain? Thanks anyway! Ryannus (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete simply fails WP:N. I can see that your fighting for this Ryannus, but in my searchs, it just does not seem notable enough to have it's own article in Wikipedia.
  • Delete - if they come back from their "hiatus" and do release an album, they may become notable in the future, but they aren't yet. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - for now. If some better sources can be found I will happily reconsider. WP:MUSIC set a high bar for bands to get over and unfortunately they are not there yet. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, once the second album is released, the band should be worthy of an article? I just don't see the point in recreating a full page, as the album is allegedly due to be released in the near future. Ryannus (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Once this article has been AfD'd, then this article Bull By The Horns should be speedily deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have PRODed Bull By The Horns, with a note about this AFD. The PROD will expire after the AFD is closed, but it's there in case no-one remembers to speedy the album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reluctant Delete I now concede that the article does not satisfy notability requirements, despite my relentless efforts at helping the article attain this level of notability. I do hope however, that when the second album is released, the band will have, by then, reached a desired level of notability and I will be able to contribute to the construction of the new page. I think it's time to wrap this one up. Ryannus (talk) 02:09, 22 March 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.