Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitamin S

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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin S

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Vitamin S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability nor sources given. Probably qualifies for CSD A7, but I don't want any doubt. Also, if this debate ends with deletion, the page Vitamin S (disambiguation) needs to be moved back to Vitamin S. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page is a massive copyright violation from [1]. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to #External Sources, they are simply event guides which most local newspapers have. A good thing to find would be a feature piece on the group from a magazine or newspaper. Blogs aren't considered reliable either. Charles Stewart (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Few, if any, newspapers have events guides for non-existent regular events. Those were listed to provide evidence of longevity. One of the external sources is a pdf of government grants for the arts. It is non-trivial to obtain government and local body funding, and the government is, one would assume, considered a reliable source of information. I would note that Vitamin S is not a 'group' or 'band'. Dinobass (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read up on WP:NOTE. The shear fact that this group (or organization, etc. The page doesn't classify them) has been around for X amount of years, of gets money from the government doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. For instance, i they're a community group (which I'm now inclined to think they are), then Wikipedia:ORG governs the rule of notability. It reads that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thanks, Charles Stewart (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please refer to www.vitamin-s.co.nz before deleting the page. Just because you know of know "notability" nor "source" doesn't mean there is none. A google search would have shown you that Vitamin S is exactly as the page in question asserted. Urlygrrl (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Charles, please be WP:CIVIL. Urlygrrl, welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Vitamin S website is not the only information we need. Wikipedia requires secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself, so we need to see things like press coverage or something like that. And you cannot simply copy information from the Vitamin-S website, that's plagiarism and a copyright violation. If you can rewrite this page within a few days to address these concerns then the article can stay, otherwise we will have to delete the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. (And where was Charles Stewart being uncivil?) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The nice try line was about the about the Urllygirl account being created 5 minutes after I nominated this page for deletion. And "her" first edit was to this talkpage. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Sources

It has been brought to my notice that external sources other than the vitamin s website are required. I can provide plenty such references, although I'm not entirely sure how many of them should be on the article page itself, or the appropriate places to put them. I will replicate the list below on the Vitamin S talk page.

A print media publication "what's on this week" page from 2003 - which should help to establish longevity. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=3506832 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=2047756

Creative New Zealand government arts funding grants for 2005-2006. This should also help to prove legitimacy. http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/files/05-06-2.pdf

Published preview from another print media publication http://www.nzmusician.co.nz/index.php/ps_pagename/newsitem/pi_newsitemid/2747

Story from nz herald about alternative music which mentions Vitamin S http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=200&objectid=10453800

Article about the current festival programme. http://www.eventfinder.co.nz/2008/feb/auckland/punish-reward-k5k.html

Blog entry from 2005 http://etnobofin.blogspot.com/2005/02/vitamin-s-odeon-monday-7th-february.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobass (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these qualify as reliable sources necessary to fulfill our notability guidelines. (corrected link to WP:MUSIC)) Need more than just trivial mention. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, why do you feel that The New Zealand Herald, one of the largest (if not the largest) New Zealand newspapers, is not a reliable source for information about a New Zealand organization?

I don't see anything relevant in your cite to WP:BAND. Did you actually mean to cite to WP:MUSIC? That seems to be focused on notability standards for a band, and this organization, as described in the article, is not a band. It's a collective that hosts workshops, puts together random trios of players who have never before played together, etc. It's not a band. I think we're doing the article a disservice by treating it like a band. TJRC (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant WP:MUSIC. The problem with their appearance in the NZ Herald is that it is merely trivial mention (ie, listing in an "upcoming events" section, and passing mention in a brief article). That doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC nor WP:N in general, if you think that our music guidelines don't apply to this "collective". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC Vitamin S doesn't fall within the band criteria at all well, or even within WP:MUSIC - both of which are focussed on individuals or ensembles with long term existence creating a body of recorded work. The ensembles which form a core part of Vitamin S are, by design, rarely if ever the same twice. Improvisation is a performance art form which is by its very nature ephemeral. This was part of my original rationale for creating the page, Vitamin S is, as far as I can tell, a unique beast even within the genre of improvisation. It is also notable in terms of the New Zealand musical scene in terms of what it enables - the regular events (sporadic) and festivals (around 2 a year) and the bands it has spawned etc. It certainly isn't a group or ensemble in that regard (the nearest to that would be '10 acre bloc' or 'the dominion centenary brass band' - neither of which are 'Vitamin S' as such).

The issue I'm personally having in providing citations for WP:N is as follows. The main print media in New Zealand who have a web presence don't archive everything they print - and particularly not reviews and previews. I am aware of this, so for my own projects I take care to archive such references, however this is a project I'm only peripherally involved with and was not involved in creating - therefore I don't have chapter and verse in hand.

This is not to say such material don't exist or can't be found, just that I don't personally have them to hand. Furthermore at this point in time the people who are likely to have such material are currently involved in a 2 week long improvisation festival. I provided the gig guide listings not because they were particularly notable in and of themselves, but to provide evidence of longevity.

In the 'This Page in a nutshell' for WP:MUSIC it states first that a musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some recognition by professional organisations or music charts - as improvisation at this level is primarily a live performance art form chart success is extremely unlikely - however several members of the Vitamin S pool have, indeed, had chart success. It also states that notability is achieved if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. My understanding is that this week several people representing Vitamin S were interviewed on TV and there has been radio coverage over the years (what's on at Vitamin S is a regular staple of one of the 'Jazz' shows) - these are, of course, particularly difficult to prove. I have found several interviews on the new zealand musician (music magazine with nationwide coverage) site were some of our busiest musicians mention their involvement with Vitamin S - I'm not sure whether to even list those or not.

When I created this page I anticipated a calm period of evolution during which such details could be found - which is clearly naivete on my part and for which I must apologise. - Dinobass (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note none of the above statement has been verified. Charles Stewart (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MUSIC radio interviews with Vitamin S as the primary focus would count. Chris O'Connor [[2]] has just been interviewed on 95BfM [[3]] about the auckland improvisation scene, with Vitamin S as the main focus. Drew McMillan, one of the founders of Vitamin S is also going to be interviewed this week in relation to Vitamin S and improvisation in general. 95BfM www.95bfm.co.nz has an internet broadcast stream and possibly archived podcasts. Would that count as verifiable in this regard? Dinobass (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Given the cites provided by Dinobass, there is no longer any question of the organization's notability. TJRC (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but keep working on the page. A little Googling shows these guys have been around and performing for quite a while: We're not dealing with Wayne and Garth in the basement here. PhGustaf (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone doubts their existence, just whether their notability can be verified by reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC because of some of the references (not the gig guides) that Dinobass provided. Now all they need to do is be in the article, not in this discussion.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:MUSIC#C1 Which reads:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.^[1]
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries^[2] except for the following:
     • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

While Dinabass has provided multiple independent sources, all the sources are simply trivial according to WP:MUSIC since they simply report performance dates.

~Charles Stewart (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, thanks Charles, funny how missing a small word like except changes things. Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that too at first, its probably the italics. Charles Stewart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Please note, neither WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND are particularly appropriate to Vitamin S which is neither a band nor an ensemble or, indeed, limited to music as a form of expression. It does include a collection of ensembles and there are plenty of reviews on-line of ensembles related to vitamin s, such as 10 Acre Bloc, New Pacific Music Ensemble, Dominion Centenary Brass Band etc. None of these are, however, Vitamin S. There are also plenty of articles where members of the Vitamin S pool mention the collective. Furthermore, not *all* of the articles cited were in the list of exceptions. Although not listed under WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC, grants from national and local body funding are surely evidence of notability for an artists collective such as Vitamin S. Finding evidence of notability that fits the limits set by Wikipedia seems like a difficult task right at the moment, but it's small beer indeed compared to the Herculean task of getting Creative New Zealand to part with tax payers money (and rightly so - I'd like to thank Creative New Zealand for their fine work, even though they've never given me anything). Dinobass (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If neither WP:BAND nor WP:MUSIC apply, what does? Does WP:ORG apply since they're an organization? If it does apply, Vitamin S is far too local to be considered notable. If WP:ORG doesn't apply, what does? I don't know how many times you've said policy X or Policy Z don't apply, but I've never heard you say which one does. Perhaps you won't commit to a single policy since Vitamin S isn't considered notable under policy? Charles Stewart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, given a little more time than this rather premature deletion notice would allow for, citations able to satisfy the criteria for WP:N can be provided - in fact, having supplied links to government documents, interviews, and radio interviews talking about the subject matter, such citations should already have done. So why should I commit to more restrictive guidelines that don't apply? The available guidelines are Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People and Web Content. This list seems somewhat restrictive in an age of multi-disciplinary performance art. However, if we assume notability under WP:ORG - the note on that page says: "Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion for, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly.". Vitamin S has been covered in a feature article in 'The Central Leader', an equivalent publication, as well as features on radio and television. The issue here isn't that evidence for notability in this regard don't exist, more that they don't exist in the on-line version of dead tree publications for easy confirmation or rejection by people half way around the world.

We wouldn't be in this situation if Charles Stewart hadn't chosen to vandalise the first attempts to create the Vitamin S page, then go against the spirit of WP:DELETE by calling for deletion without prior discussion or suggestions for improvement, as well as continually removing the rescue tags placed (and replaced) by the kindness of complete strangers. Most people are only reading the discussion here and have probably not read the original page blanking by Charles Stewart with the comment (rmv crap). This can be found on the history page of Vitamin_S_(disambiguation). I restored what appeared to me as simple vandalism. At that point, without starting a discussion on the talk page, or following any of the guidelines suggested on WP:Delete, Charles Stewart added the afd tag.

It clearly states on WP:DELETE that:

1. • Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes

It also states on WP:DELETE that:

1. • Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion
   • The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

None of this was done prior to the deletion notice. I certainly appreciate, and will implement, the advice on improvement from other editors subsequent to the deletion notice being placed. However, given that I am working to the 5 day constraints of a deletion notice that was created for reasons other than the spirit of WP:DELETE, and that the dead tree citations required will take longer than that to compile, is it at all surprising that I do not feel any desire to commit to inappropriate and more restrictive notability guidelines? Dinobass (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) When you go to create an article, "# Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Did you do this? If you had read it, you'd have seen the part where it tells you (thrice actually) to gather reliable sources, and to list them in the article. Did you list reliable sources in the article? No. And, it tells you to be careful about local-interest articles.

Also, when you created it, you improperly moved Vitamin S to Vitamin S (disambiguation) then made an article at Vitamin S. You're not supposed to do that.
~Charles Stewart (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the talk page. (And perhaps if this energy could be channeled to improving articles, we'd improve the encyclopedia). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, a message was left on the talk page imploring folks to take the discussion here. As a newcomer to this entire aspect of Wikipedia I took that as an indication of procedure. I have added radio/TV interviews and dates to the talk page - adding them to the article itself seems too much like self-aggrandisement (even though I'm not personally involved in any of the articles or interviews). Dinobass (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of reading, Charles Stewart, have you read WP:BITE? TJRC (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure have. I don't feel bitten though, so don't worry. Afterall, he has been here longer than me. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think reading that as "it's okay to bite non-newcomers," or "it's okay for newcomers to bite" is quite the right spirit. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this page is for discussing the deletion of this article. If you have issues with a particular editor's behavior, take it up on that person's own talk page (or other appropriate venues). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is tricky, because it's still not clear which, if any policies apply. There's no WP:Nonprofit Artistic Collectives. But the original author, and others, have I think greatly improved this page, and I think it's reasonable to give him a few more days to get more references sorted out. The government grants to the group are in themselves significant arguments for notability. PhGustaf (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As per Wikipedia:HEY, and Notiblity has been estabilished Gnevin (talk) 16:22, 23 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.