- 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. GNG shown to be met. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Postmen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band's name makes it difficult to find sources, but the article (here and the Dutch one) are unsourced and the criteria content discussed does not explain how the subject meets any notability criteria.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- It helps to put the band members surnames in as restrictive search terms.
- "Postmen voor optreden naar Suriname". Waterkant (in Dutch). 2016-05-27.
- Uncle G ( talk) 12:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.
Walter Görlitz, what do you mean with the "the criteria discussed does not explain"? Discussed where? I see no previous nomination or text on the talk page. Also: which criteria? Finally: can someone correct the listing error?
gidonb (
talk)
15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It was late and I was tired. It should have been content or something similar. The article itself does not discuss why they would even considered notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz: NP. Stuff happens. I agree that the article does not make a clear claim to fame but, on the other hand, it does not convey that this a local band either. Now, one click away is the Nlwiki entry. According to your intro you checked that article. It does claim that all the Postmen's albums charted on national charts, as did five (!) of its singles. One album went platinum. Our entry also covers Postman for whom all albums charted in Holland (one also in Belgium) and two singles charted as well. gidonb ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It was late and I was tired. It should have been content or something similar. The article itself does not discuss why they would even considered notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:BAND #2 and #3. See above. gidonb ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why bother with chart positions and whatnot, when the easy argument is that they are encyclopaedic because well before we even had an article at all they had a non-trivial entry in another encyclopaedia (with stuff that we still do not have, such as the origin of the name)?
- Larkin, Colin, ed. (2006). "Postmen". The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Vol. 6: Morricone, Ennio–Rich Kids (4th ed.). MUZE. pp. 609–610. ISBN 9780195313734.
- Uncle G ( talk) 04:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, Uncle G's encyclopedia entry and, for example, this source are sufficient for WP:BAND #1. I never doubted that BAND #1 would be satisfied. Only pointed out that the data of the referenced Nlwiki article are already sufficient for WP:BAND #2 and #3. gidonb ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BAND #8 is also met. See here. Probably a lot of items on the band list are satisfied. This is a major band. gidonb ( talk) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment wonderful that they meet the criteria, yet for all this supposed notability, can we find any sources? Without them, the subject is clearly not notable. This is why WP:BAND clearly states that bands that meet criteria may be notable and it does not state that they are notable. Clearly, this supposed notability does not actually exist. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi
Walter! BAND #1 is about sources. It is satisfied. See above.
gidonb (
talk)
07:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- yes it is, but the point is that notability means that they have been written about, and the preface to it all—and this is what most readers completely miss—is may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The assumption is not that they are notable because they meet any criteria, but that they may be.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed that @
SNUGGUMS: makes this same point when responding to a question about a different criteria at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#WP:NSONG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, their point is marginally valid. It's the opposite case under the same guideline. gidonb ( talk) 06:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed that @
SNUGGUMS: makes this same point when responding to a question about a different criteria at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#WP:NSONG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- yes it is, but the point is that notability means that they have been written about, and the preface to it all—and this is what most readers completely miss—is may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The assumption is not that they are notable because they meet any criteria, but that they may be.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi
Walter! BAND #1 is about sources. It is satisfied. See above.
gidonb (
talk)
07:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep See for example Larkin, C. (2006). Postmen. In The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2022 also coverage in Billboard Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (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.
- 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. GNG shown to be met. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Postmen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band's name makes it difficult to find sources, but the article (here and the Dutch one) are unsourced and the criteria content discussed does not explain how the subject meets any notability criteria.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- It helps to put the band members surnames in as restrictive search terms.
- "Postmen voor optreden naar Suriname". Waterkant (in Dutch). 2016-05-27.
- Uncle G ( talk) 12:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.
Walter Görlitz, what do you mean with the "the criteria discussed does not explain"? Discussed where? I see no previous nomination or text on the talk page. Also: which criteria? Finally: can someone correct the listing error?
gidonb (
talk)
15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It was late and I was tired. It should have been content or something similar. The article itself does not discuss why they would even considered notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz: NP. Stuff happens. I agree that the article does not make a clear claim to fame but, on the other hand, it does not convey that this a local band either. Now, one click away is the Nlwiki entry. According to your intro you checked that article. It does claim that all the Postmen's albums charted on national charts, as did five (!) of its singles. One album went platinum. Our entry also covers Postman for whom all albums charted in Holland (one also in Belgium) and two singles charted as well. gidonb ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It was late and I was tired. It should have been content or something similar. The article itself does not discuss why they would even considered notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:BAND #2 and #3. See above. gidonb ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why bother with chart positions and whatnot, when the easy argument is that they are encyclopaedic because well before we even had an article at all they had a non-trivial entry in another encyclopaedia (with stuff that we still do not have, such as the origin of the name)?
- Larkin, Colin, ed. (2006). "Postmen". The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Vol. 6: Morricone, Ennio–Rich Kids (4th ed.). MUZE. pp. 609–610. ISBN 9780195313734.
- Uncle G ( talk) 04:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, Uncle G's encyclopedia entry and, for example, this source are sufficient for WP:BAND #1. I never doubted that BAND #1 would be satisfied. Only pointed out that the data of the referenced Nlwiki article are already sufficient for WP:BAND #2 and #3. gidonb ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BAND #8 is also met. See here. Probably a lot of items on the band list are satisfied. This is a major band. gidonb ( talk) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment wonderful that they meet the criteria, yet for all this supposed notability, can we find any sources? Without them, the subject is clearly not notable. This is why WP:BAND clearly states that bands that meet criteria may be notable and it does not state that they are notable. Clearly, this supposed notability does not actually exist. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi
Walter! BAND #1 is about sources. It is satisfied. See above.
gidonb (
talk)
07:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- yes it is, but the point is that notability means that they have been written about, and the preface to it all—and this is what most readers completely miss—is may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The assumption is not that they are notable because they meet any criteria, but that they may be.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed that @
SNUGGUMS: makes this same point when responding to a question about a different criteria at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#WP:NSONG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, their point is marginally valid. It's the opposite case under the same guideline. gidonb ( talk) 06:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed that @
SNUGGUMS: makes this same point when responding to a question about a different criteria at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#WP:NSONG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- yes it is, but the point is that notability means that they have been written about, and the preface to it all—and this is what most readers completely miss—is may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The assumption is not that they are notable because they meet any criteria, but that they may be.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi
Walter! BAND #1 is about sources. It is satisfied. See above.
gidonb (
talk)
07:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep See for example Larkin, C. (2006). Postmen. In The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2022 also coverage in Billboard Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (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.