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.
Article (re-)created in violation of
WP:COI guideline, likely by label
One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete —Kusma (
t·
c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) —Kusma (
t·
c)
13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Definitely notable. It would be better for articles to be created by editors independent of the band or their record company but unless an article is irredeemably promotional it's not necessarily a reason to delete it. There's enough coverage around from good sources to have a well sourced article. --
Michig (
talk)
08:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I disagree. It is good to delete articles created by editors with a financial interest to discourage such creations (even if it is fighting against windmills). Anyway, so far the article only consists of promotional quotes, so nothing is lost by deleting it and starting from scratch. —Kusma (
t·
c)
08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The quotes in the article come from independent sources, and the article also includes basic information about the band and a discography, so I think you're misrepresenting it by stating that it only consists of 'promotional quotes'. --
Michig (
talk)
08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm with
Michig here. This is simply the hyperbolic style in which music journalism is written today (at least in this particular field). And if you think about it, a quote like "capable of igniting a spark in your gut that’ll burn until there’s nothing left" does tell you about the style of music you are dealing with just as readily as a more intellectual and detached analysis ("angry, fast-paced and rhythmically compelling rock music") would – and the latter would simply be an artificial idiom for Wikipedia to use, given that nobody else writes this way about this kind of music.
AndreasJN46617:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, unquestionably notable. Feature in
The Guardian:
[1]. Coverage in Yorkshire Evening Post:
[2] Clash:
[3]. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
[4] Austin Chronicle mentions SXSW appearance:
[5] Coverage in Italian music site Outune.net:
[6] Etc. If the article author is doing this as part of his job, he should promptly disclose that professional relationship, per the WMF terms of use
[7], take scrupulous care to write neutral text faithfully summarising sources (ideally having someone look their work over) and have the book thrown at them if they don't, but it's not a reason to delete articles on notable bands.
AndreasJN46616:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: decidedly stated as notable (musical festival appearances including
SXSW) and has sustainable sources, especially
The Guardian. All the 'Reception" quotes are thankfully formatted as quotes and sourced to their writers. Only issue for me is linkfarm for social networking sites.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fylbecatulous (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 21 September 2015
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.
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.
Article (re-)created in violation of
WP:COI guideline, likely by label
One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete —Kusma (
t·
c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) —Kusma (
t·
c)
13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Definitely notable. It would be better for articles to be created by editors independent of the band or their record company but unless an article is irredeemably promotional it's not necessarily a reason to delete it. There's enough coverage around from good sources to have a well sourced article. --
Michig (
talk)
08:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I disagree. It is good to delete articles created by editors with a financial interest to discourage such creations (even if it is fighting against windmills). Anyway, so far the article only consists of promotional quotes, so nothing is lost by deleting it and starting from scratch. —Kusma (
t·
c)
08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The quotes in the article come from independent sources, and the article also includes basic information about the band and a discography, so I think you're misrepresenting it by stating that it only consists of 'promotional quotes'. --
Michig (
talk)
08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm with
Michig here. This is simply the hyperbolic style in which music journalism is written today (at least in this particular field). And if you think about it, a quote like "capable of igniting a spark in your gut that’ll burn until there’s nothing left" does tell you about the style of music you are dealing with just as readily as a more intellectual and detached analysis ("angry, fast-paced and rhythmically compelling rock music") would – and the latter would simply be an artificial idiom for Wikipedia to use, given that nobody else writes this way about this kind of music.
AndreasJN46617:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, unquestionably notable. Feature in
The Guardian:
[1]. Coverage in Yorkshire Evening Post:
[2] Clash:
[3]. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
[4] Austin Chronicle mentions SXSW appearance:
[5] Coverage in Italian music site Outune.net:
[6] Etc. If the article author is doing this as part of his job, he should promptly disclose that professional relationship, per the WMF terms of use
[7], take scrupulous care to write neutral text faithfully summarising sources (ideally having someone look their work over) and have the book thrown at them if they don't, but it's not a reason to delete articles on notable bands.
AndreasJN46616:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: decidedly stated as notable (musical festival appearances including
SXSW) and has sustainable sources, especially
The Guardian. All the 'Reception" quotes are thankfully formatted as quotes and sourced to their writers. Only issue for me is linkfarm for social networking sites.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fylbecatulous (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 21 September 2015
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.