Talk:The Western Investor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please note that reaching #1 on The R3-30 chart simultaneously satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 2 and 11, and therefore this article is not speedy deletable. Bearcat 07:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
From Dynaflow's Talk page:
[edit] The Western Investor – speedy delete
You tagged The Western Investor with speedy delete. In the article, it was asserted that the band met criterion #11 in notability on WP:MUSIC, that they were in frequent rotation on a national network, CBC Radio 3. Actually, the band's listing in the article The R3-30 (having a number-one song on the chart) was why I created the article in the first place. (I was in the process of contesting it when it was deleted.) Let me know if you have any advice. Much obliged, --Paul Erik 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I see it, they have not satisfied the criteria for notability. They do not seem to be on Radio 3's rotation; if they are, you must cite this. They are played and highly regarded on a show on Radio 3 premised on the fact that the songs it plays are obscure and not on regular rotation, but this does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Even some corners of obscurity get a bit of limelight now and then.
- Wait for a while. If they indeed have what it takes, they will get bigger one day. Until then, you'll be jumping the gun. Even though the admin who deleted the article saw your hangon tag [1], he also agreed that they have yet to satisfy the criteria for inclusion.--Dynaflow 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I had thought that reaching number one on The R3-30 chart demonstrated that they were in high rotation on CBC Radio 3, but I may not be understanding what that chart is all about. Thanks for the feedback. --Paul Erik 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Western Investor most certainly are in regular rotation on CBC Radio 3. I think I have almost every word to "If You Wanna Go" memorized by now, and I've never heard the song anywhere but Radio 3. Reaching number one on the R3-30 chart, by definition, does fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria. The R3-30 is not premised on the "fact" that its songs are not on regular rotation — you may be confusing the show as a whole with the "Chartbreaker" feature. By definition, a song has to be in regular rotation to actually attain a chart ranking; that the show makes some space for listeners to promote songs outside of the network's standing playlist does not mean that all songs on the show are off-rotation. Bearcat 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not in Canada, nor do I listen to Canadian radio, so my judgement of what exactly a show like that might play is based on the US commercial radio and BBC streams I listen to. If you can prove your point with citations, you might well save the article. Be warned, though, that, in Wikipedia's eyes, if you can't cite it, it doesn't exist, and the burden of proof is on the article's authors. As for this "chart," is it an actual sales chart, a la Billboard, or is it the way they term their compiled playlist statistics for that particular program? --Dynaflow 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- How exactly would you propose that one cite "has been in rotation on CBC Radio 3" apart from actual listener experience and/or the chart show? I'm an administrator, and the citation already present is entirely sufficient. Bearcat 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- One "citation" is the band's MySpace page. The other is a link to a CBC page which says, right up front, that they are unsigned, and consists of a blurb the band's members apparently wrote themselves, a track list, and contact information. I am taking this thread to the article's discussion page. We'll sort it out there. --Dynaflow 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to reread the article a bit more closely. Namely, you might be interested to note that the footnote which directly follows the sentence about the R3-30 chart is a direct link to the R3-30 chart that has The Western Investor at the top of it, which is entirely sufficient sourcing for the claim that they've topped said chart. WP:MUSIC is not open to subjective interpretations; if a band tops a chart on a national radio network, they're notable enough for us. You don't get to apply subjective criteria to dismiss the notability of said network or said chart. Also, incidentally, you appear to be unclear on the following distinction: CBC Radio 3 is a 24/7 radio network; The R3-30 is a show on said network which presents a countdown chart of songs played on that network. SOme of your prior comments in this thread appear not to fully understand that distinction. Bearcat 07:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- One "citation" is the band's MySpace page. The other is a link to a CBC page which says, right up front, that they are unsigned, and consists of a blurb the band's members apparently wrote themselves, a track list, and contact information. I am taking this thread to the article's discussion page. We'll sort it out there. --Dynaflow 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Okay, I've found that. I assumed, because of the way they were doing their frames, that that link was taking me to the same place as the CBC link under "External links." After reading that and the WP article on the R3-30, I'm still not convinced this one, primary source will stand. What is the criteria of this chart? "The R3-30 is a weekly record chart show on CBC Radio 3, which counts down the week's top indie rock singles as determined by airplay [Where? This one station? In Canada? On small, South Pacific islands whose names start with the letter M?], listener feedback [Abstract, "unscientific" criteria that isn't available for examination anyway], and other criteria [What other criteria?]." You yourself assert that it's hard to find anything beyond this one citation (a blog post, no less) aside from your own observations (which would constitute WP:OR). "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:NOTE) Where are those sources? --Dynaflow 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- A weekly chart program on a national radio network is notable, and a band which ranks on said chart is notable, regardless of whether the method by which the chart is compiled satisfies your personal peccadillos or not. Appearance on said record chart, further, does not need to be sourced to anything beyond an actual publication of said chart by CBC Radio 3, which is exactly what the link in question is. The fact that R3 uses a blog format on its website does not make its website an unreliable source. A national radio network chart is a national radio network chart, and no amount of "but the criteria for compiling the chart don't seem to be scientific enough for meeeeeeeeeeeee!" makes it not a national radio network chart. WP:MUSIC applies as written, not "as filtered through Dynaflow's own personal choice of subtext". Bearcat 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, let's just take this to AfD and see what happens. The two of us probably aren't going to find a happy medium between "delete" and "keep," so the wider community should probably be consulted at this point. --Dynaflow 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's no basis for AFD. The topic meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:MUSIC. Bearcat 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Suggest a speedykeep at the AfD and see if everybody goes for it. --Dynaflow 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's no basis for AFD. The topic meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:MUSIC. Bearcat 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, let's just take this to AfD and see what happens. The two of us probably aren't going to find a happy medium between "delete" and "keep," so the wider community should probably be consulted at this point. --Dynaflow 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)