- 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. postdlf ( talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The Reformation (band)
- The Reformation (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band and their self-released albums are not notable. The articles do not provide substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Per previous Afd, "The result was delete. I'm also salting, as the article has been recreated and deleted multiple times." I found no explanation for why it was permitted to be recreated (oversight?)--there is no reason to suggest it belongs in an encyclopedia. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related album entries, which also lack substantial coverage to demonstrate notability:
- The Reformation (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fatal Expectation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keep all. Artist pages have at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional four new sources are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. Wikitam331 ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you identify the additional sources since the previous AfD? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really? I'm not seeing anything that fits these descriptions--could you provide links? Thanks. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources are on
The_Reformation_(band)#References. #1 is an in-depth song-by-song album review in an established music journal. #2 is a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, and is the only source that was present before the article was deleted the first time. #4 is is another non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper. #5 is an in-depth interview of the band in an established music journal. #6 is a song review in a podcast that was done by an established music publication. Point being, that there are at least five acceptable sources provided, and
WP:BAND only requires a minimum of three acceptable sources.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- #1 and #5 are to the same non-reliable source, nor can independence be determined. Neither the site nor the reviewer have WP articles--is it some sort of blog collective? Based on web searches, no one knows. #2 was previously dismissed in the AfD that got this article salted. #4 is four sentences in a local free weekly--hope the author at least got a cup of coffee out the deal. #6 is a YouTube video by some guy in his basement that's managed 54 views. What else you got? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that #1 and #5 are not independent, and a source does not need to have a WP article in order to be considered credible. The source
has published interviews with notable individuals such as
Jon Anderson,
John Payne (singer),
Martin Barre, and many others. There is no doubt that it is a reliable source. #2 was not "dismissed", it was deemed insufficient to establish notability by itself. Length is not a requirement for notability, which is why #4 is an acceptable source. #6 is not "some guy in his basement", it's a podcast by an editor from Middle Tennessee Music, a music publication that
has provided plenty of evidence of its credibility.]
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are as much a "PR and marketing firm" as they are a "music publication". They aim to promote singer/songwriters and bands (their "clients") using their online media (including podcasts). We'll never know if the band paid them to promote them or not but don't, for a minute, confuse them with Rolling Stone. They are perfectly entitled to do what they do but suggesting they are a reliable source is a stretch.
St★lwart
111 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for those claims?
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The link you provided - everything after the first point in "To summarize". They make no secret of it.
St★lwart
111 01:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them an unreliable source in any way.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest they're not a source, such that the question thereafter (of reliably or not) is moot. They don't report on musical acts (like the New York Times), they promote musical acts in an effort to get people to report on them. They brag about coverage they've managed to get for particular bands.
St★lwart
111 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They most certainly do report on musical acts. Nothing else that you said proves that it's an unacceptable source.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 05:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They report on their own acts, yes. Like any other record label, except that they work for independents and unsigned groups, "with the goal of empowering them to have more control over their career". That's fine but let's not pretend they are something they are not. It's not my job to prove that they aren't a reliable source (anyway), it's your job to prove they are. In light of their candid admission of their purpose, what evidence do you have that they are lying and are, in fact, an industry magazine? "We are here to engage, support, promote, and empower the independent music community." They aren't a publication, they are a PR agency.
St★lwart
111 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your proof that "The Reformation" is one of "their own" acts? The proof that MTM is a credible source has already been provided to you, and when it was, you admitted that they are a music publication. In fact, they publish interviews and album reviews on their website. Sounds like a music publication to me. Additionally being involved in promotion does not mean they are an uncredible source. Nobody ever said they are an "industry magazine", please don't dishonestly put words in my mouth like that.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've "admitted" no such thing and I don't even know where you think the "gotcha" was. Your job here is to convince people that the sources are reliable and the band is notable. The "source" in question isn't close to reliable. You're so busy arguing for the sake of arguing that you're getting nowhere on the
WP:CONSENSUS you need. I'm done - you can argue this out with others (as you have at DRV and AFD before).
St★lwart
111 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- You said, "They are as much a 'PR and marketing firm' as they are a 'music publication',", and I agree. There was no "gotcha". This is pointless anyway, becuase you came in here with your mind made up already. You were not going to reverse your decision no matter how much proof was provided to you. Wikitam331 ( talk) 07:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've "admitted" no such thing and I don't even know where you think the "gotcha" was. Your job here is to convince people that the sources are reliable and the band is notable. The "source" in question isn't close to reliable. You're so busy arguing for the sake of arguing that you're getting nowhere on the
WP:CONSENSUS you need. I'm done - you can argue this out with others (as you have at DRV and AFD before).
St★lwart
111 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your proof that "The Reformation" is one of "their own" acts? The proof that MTM is a credible source has already been provided to you, and when it was, you admitted that they are a music publication. In fact, they publish interviews and album reviews on their website. Sounds like a music publication to me. Additionally being involved in promotion does not mean they are an uncredible source. Nobody ever said they are an "industry magazine", please don't dishonestly put words in my mouth like that.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They report on their own acts, yes. Like any other record label, except that they work for independents and unsigned groups, "with the goal of empowering them to have more control over their career". That's fine but let's not pretend they are something they are not. It's not my job to prove that they aren't a reliable source (anyway), it's your job to prove they are. In light of their candid admission of their purpose, what evidence do you have that they are lying and are, in fact, an industry magazine? "We are here to engage, support, promote, and empower the independent music community." They aren't a publication, they are a PR agency.
St★lwart
111 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They most certainly do report on musical acts. Nothing else that you said proves that it's an unacceptable source.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 05:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest they're not a source, such that the question thereafter (of reliably or not) is moot. They don't report on musical acts (like the New York Times), they promote musical acts in an effort to get people to report on them. They brag about coverage they've managed to get for particular bands.
St★lwart
111 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them an unreliable source in any way.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- The link you provided - everything after the first point in "To summarize". They make no secret of it.
St★lwart
111 01:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for those claims?
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are as much a "PR and marketing firm" as they are a "music publication". They aim to promote singer/songwriters and bands (their "clients") using their online media (including podcasts). We'll never know if the band paid them to promote them or not but don't, for a minute, confuse them with Rolling Stone. They are perfectly entitled to do what they do but suggesting they are a reliable source is a stretch.
St★lwart
111 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that #1 and #5 are not independent, and a source does not need to have a WP article in order to be considered credible. The source
has published interviews with notable individuals such as
Jon Anderson,
John Payne (singer),
Martin Barre, and many others. There is no doubt that it is a reliable source. #2 was not "dismissed", it was deemed insufficient to establish notability by itself. Length is not a requirement for notability, which is why #4 is an acceptable source. #6 is not "some guy in his basement", it's a podcast by an editor from Middle Tennessee Music, a music publication that
has provided plenty of evidence of its credibility.]
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- #1 and #5 are to the same non-reliable source, nor can independence be determined. Neither the site nor the reviewer have WP articles--is it some sort of blog collective? Based on web searches, no one knows. #2 was previously dismissed in the AfD that got this article salted. #4 is four sentences in a local free weekly--hope the author at least got a cup of coffee out the deal. #6 is a YouTube video by some guy in his basement that's managed 54 views. What else you got? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources are on
The_Reformation_(band)#References. #1 is an in-depth song-by-song album review in an established music journal. #2 is a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, and is the only source that was present before the article was deleted the first time. #4 is is another non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper. #5 is an in-depth interview of the band in an established music journal. #6 is a song review in a podcast that was done by an established music publication. Point being, that there are at least five acceptable sources provided, and
WP:BAND only requires a minimum of three acceptable sources.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really? I'm not seeing anything that fits these descriptions--could you provide links? Thanks. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you identify the additional sources since the previous AfD? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all - Nothing has changed substantially since the last time; the same single-purpose account vainly chipping away at an article for his favorite local band, the same local newspaper blurb, the same "review" from a non-notable music blog. Does not meet WP:BAND, nor does t meet WP:GNG. Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time. As the band is non-notable and the albums are non-charting independent releases, delete those as well. Tarc ( talk) 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is false. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional three new sources are sufficient to establish notability per
WP:BAND. In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. There are at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The page only needs to satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in
WP:BAND, which it clearly does. You are also making claims contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, like "Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time."
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are overstating the case w/r/t admin's decision--unsalting admin said "
This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox". Am still curious about these "three new sources"--care to elucidate? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- See above, in the fourth bullet point under my original comment. Wikitam331 ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are overstating the case w/r/t admin's decision--unsalting admin said "
This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox". Am still curious about these "three new sources"--care to elucidate? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is false. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional three new sources are sufficient to establish notability per
WP:BAND. In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. There are at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The page only needs to satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in
WP:BAND, which it clearly does. You are also making claims contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, like "Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time."
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know why the nominator asked me on my talk page to participate in this. [1] I have never once edited these pages, nor participated in the past AFDs. I checked to make certain. I see a total of 18 people were contacted. Why? Dream Focus 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were notified because you participated in this AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I notified editors who made content changes to the band or album articles or who participated in previous AfD's about them--did not realize there had been so many previous AfD's when I started. I excluding template-fixers, non-involved admins, and banned/blocked users. Sorry if I over-notified --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't see that. Different color signature back then so I didn't notice. Way back in 2008 I said delete because the album wasn't even out yet. Alright, my mistake. Dream Focus 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were notified because you participated in this AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I notified editors who made content changes to the band or album articles or who participated in previous AfD's about them--did not realize there had been so many previous AfD's when I started. I excluding template-fixers, non-involved admins, and banned/blocked users. Sorry if I over-notified --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all and salt again. This was repeatedly recreated and the last AFD (despite being the subject of a concerted sock-puppetry campaign) still resulted in delete. I know the request seemed good-faith but I really can't see why this was unsalted. A new local review and something from what is essentially some guy's self-published e-zine wouldn't be enough to overturn deletion and salting at DRV (which is where the recreation request should have been made). "I like this album quite a bit. These guys are pretty amazing..." Well then. St★lwart 111 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of the individuals you invited to participate, did you invite anybody who voted "keep" in past AfD's? If not, this should be considered Votestacking per WP:Votestacking. Wikitam331 ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I notified everybody who voted in the AfDs, unless they were blocked or banned, including the "keep" voters. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The sourcing in the article's is extremely weak. Unless someone presents new coverage, I don't believe there is enough there to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Coverage to date, in my view, falls short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. Insufficient in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources - with emphasis on both independent and reliable. There seems to be a misconception on Wikipedia that a plethora of links in the 'References' section automatically adds up to notability. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. While I wasn't sure at an initial glance, the discussion between Hobbes Goodyear, Stalwart111, and Wikitam331 above does an excellent job of explaining why the sourcing at present does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. While I'm neutral on whether the titles merit salting again, the delete question isn't even close. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all - No assertion of notability in the context of WP:BAND or WP:GNG. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (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 delete. postdlf ( talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The Reformation (band)
- The Reformation (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band and their self-released albums are not notable. The articles do not provide substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Per previous Afd, "The result was delete. I'm also salting, as the article has been recreated and deleted multiple times." I found no explanation for why it was permitted to be recreated (oversight?)--there is no reason to suggest it belongs in an encyclopedia. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related album entries, which also lack substantial coverage to demonstrate notability:
- The Reformation (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fatal Expectation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keep all. Artist pages have at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional four new sources are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. Wikitam331 ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you identify the additional sources since the previous AfD? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really? I'm not seeing anything that fits these descriptions--could you provide links? Thanks. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources are on
The_Reformation_(band)#References. #1 is an in-depth song-by-song album review in an established music journal. #2 is a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, and is the only source that was present before the article was deleted the first time. #4 is is another non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper. #5 is an in-depth interview of the band in an established music journal. #6 is a song review in a podcast that was done by an established music publication. Point being, that there are at least five acceptable sources provided, and
WP:BAND only requires a minimum of three acceptable sources.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- #1 and #5 are to the same non-reliable source, nor can independence be determined. Neither the site nor the reviewer have WP articles--is it some sort of blog collective? Based on web searches, no one knows. #2 was previously dismissed in the AfD that got this article salted. #4 is four sentences in a local free weekly--hope the author at least got a cup of coffee out the deal. #6 is a YouTube video by some guy in his basement that's managed 54 views. What else you got? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that #1 and #5 are not independent, and a source does not need to have a WP article in order to be considered credible. The source
has published interviews with notable individuals such as
Jon Anderson,
John Payne (singer),
Martin Barre, and many others. There is no doubt that it is a reliable source. #2 was not "dismissed", it was deemed insufficient to establish notability by itself. Length is not a requirement for notability, which is why #4 is an acceptable source. #6 is not "some guy in his basement", it's a podcast by an editor from Middle Tennessee Music, a music publication that
has provided plenty of evidence of its credibility.]
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are as much a "PR and marketing firm" as they are a "music publication". They aim to promote singer/songwriters and bands (their "clients") using their online media (including podcasts). We'll never know if the band paid them to promote them or not but don't, for a minute, confuse them with Rolling Stone. They are perfectly entitled to do what they do but suggesting they are a reliable source is a stretch.
St★lwart
111 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for those claims?
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The link you provided - everything after the first point in "To summarize". They make no secret of it.
St★lwart
111 01:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them an unreliable source in any way.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest they're not a source, such that the question thereafter (of reliably or not) is moot. They don't report on musical acts (like the New York Times), they promote musical acts in an effort to get people to report on them. They brag about coverage they've managed to get for particular bands.
St★lwart
111 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They most certainly do report on musical acts. Nothing else that you said proves that it's an unacceptable source.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 05:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They report on their own acts, yes. Like any other record label, except that they work for independents and unsigned groups, "with the goal of empowering them to have more control over their career". That's fine but let's not pretend they are something they are not. It's not my job to prove that they aren't a reliable source (anyway), it's your job to prove they are. In light of their candid admission of their purpose, what evidence do you have that they are lying and are, in fact, an industry magazine? "We are here to engage, support, promote, and empower the independent music community." They aren't a publication, they are a PR agency.
St★lwart
111 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your proof that "The Reformation" is one of "their own" acts? The proof that MTM is a credible source has already been provided to you, and when it was, you admitted that they are a music publication. In fact, they publish interviews and album reviews on their website. Sounds like a music publication to me. Additionally being involved in promotion does not mean they are an uncredible source. Nobody ever said they are an "industry magazine", please don't dishonestly put words in my mouth like that.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've "admitted" no such thing and I don't even know where you think the "gotcha" was. Your job here is to convince people that the sources are reliable and the band is notable. The "source" in question isn't close to reliable. You're so busy arguing for the sake of arguing that you're getting nowhere on the
WP:CONSENSUS you need. I'm done - you can argue this out with others (as you have at DRV and AFD before).
St★lwart
111 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- You said, "They are as much a 'PR and marketing firm' as they are a 'music publication',", and I agree. There was no "gotcha". This is pointless anyway, becuase you came in here with your mind made up already. You were not going to reverse your decision no matter how much proof was provided to you. Wikitam331 ( talk) 07:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've "admitted" no such thing and I don't even know where you think the "gotcha" was. Your job here is to convince people that the sources are reliable and the band is notable. The "source" in question isn't close to reliable. You're so busy arguing for the sake of arguing that you're getting nowhere on the
WP:CONSENSUS you need. I'm done - you can argue this out with others (as you have at DRV and AFD before).
St★lwart
111 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your proof that "The Reformation" is one of "their own" acts? The proof that MTM is a credible source has already been provided to you, and when it was, you admitted that they are a music publication. In fact, they publish interviews and album reviews on their website. Sounds like a music publication to me. Additionally being involved in promotion does not mean they are an uncredible source. Nobody ever said they are an "industry magazine", please don't dishonestly put words in my mouth like that.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They report on their own acts, yes. Like any other record label, except that they work for independents and unsigned groups, "with the goal of empowering them to have more control over their career". That's fine but let's not pretend they are something they are not. It's not my job to prove that they aren't a reliable source (anyway), it's your job to prove they are. In light of their candid admission of their purpose, what evidence do you have that they are lying and are, in fact, an industry magazine? "We are here to engage, support, promote, and empower the independent music community." They aren't a publication, they are a PR agency.
St★lwart
111 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- They most certainly do report on musical acts. Nothing else that you said proves that it's an unacceptable source.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 05:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest they're not a source, such that the question thereafter (of reliably or not) is moot. They don't report on musical acts (like the New York Times), they promote musical acts in an effort to get people to report on them. They brag about coverage they've managed to get for particular bands.
St★lwart
111 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them an unreliable source in any way.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- The link you provided - everything after the first point in "To summarize". They make no secret of it.
St★lwart
111 01:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for those claims?
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are as much a "PR and marketing firm" as they are a "music publication". They aim to promote singer/songwriters and bands (their "clients") using their online media (including podcasts). We'll never know if the band paid them to promote them or not but don't, for a minute, confuse them with Rolling Stone. They are perfectly entitled to do what they do but suggesting they are a reliable source is a stretch.
St★lwart
111 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that #1 and #5 are not independent, and a source does not need to have a WP article in order to be considered credible. The source
has published interviews with notable individuals such as
Jon Anderson,
John Payne (singer),
Martin Barre, and many others. There is no doubt that it is a reliable source. #2 was not "dismissed", it was deemed insufficient to establish notability by itself. Length is not a requirement for notability, which is why #4 is an acceptable source. #6 is not "some guy in his basement", it's a podcast by an editor from Middle Tennessee Music, a music publication that
has provided plenty of evidence of its credibility.]
Wikitam331 (
talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- #1 and #5 are to the same non-reliable source, nor can independence be determined. Neither the site nor the reviewer have WP articles--is it some sort of blog collective? Based on web searches, no one knows. #2 was previously dismissed in the AfD that got this article salted. #4 is four sentences in a local free weekly--hope the author at least got a cup of coffee out the deal. #6 is a YouTube video by some guy in his basement that's managed 54 views. What else you got? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources are on
The_Reformation_(band)#References. #1 is an in-depth song-by-song album review in an established music journal. #2 is a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, and is the only source that was present before the article was deleted the first time. #4 is is another non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper. #5 is an in-depth interview of the band in an established music journal. #6 is a song review in a podcast that was done by an established music publication. Point being, that there are at least five acceptable sources provided, and
WP:BAND only requires a minimum of three acceptable sources.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really? I'm not seeing anything that fits these descriptions--could you provide links? Thanks. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication.
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you identify the additional sources since the previous AfD? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all - Nothing has changed substantially since the last time; the same single-purpose account vainly chipping away at an article for his favorite local band, the same local newspaper blurb, the same "review" from a non-notable music blog. Does not meet WP:BAND, nor does t meet WP:GNG. Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time. As the band is non-notable and the albums are non-charting independent releases, delete those as well. Tarc ( talk) 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is false. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional three new sources are sufficient to establish notability per
WP:BAND. In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. There are at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The page only needs to satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in
WP:BAND, which it clearly does. You are also making claims contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, like "Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time."
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are overstating the case w/r/t admin's decision--unsalting admin said "
This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox". Am still curious about these "three new sources"--care to elucidate? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- See above, in the fourth bullet point under my original comment. Wikitam331 ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are overstating the case w/r/t admin's decision--unsalting admin said "
This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox". Am still curious about these "three new sources"--care to elucidate? --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is false. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional three new sources are sufficient to establish notability per
WP:BAND. In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. There are at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The page only needs to satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in
WP:BAND, which it clearly does. You are also making claims contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, like "Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time."
Wikitam331 (
talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know why the nominator asked me on my talk page to participate in this. [1] I have never once edited these pages, nor participated in the past AFDs. I checked to make certain. I see a total of 18 people were contacted. Why? Dream Focus 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were notified because you participated in this AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I notified editors who made content changes to the band or album articles or who participated in previous AfD's about them--did not realize there had been so many previous AfD's when I started. I excluding template-fixers, non-involved admins, and banned/blocked users. Sorry if I over-notified --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't see that. Different color signature back then so I didn't notice. Way back in 2008 I said delete because the album wasn't even out yet. Alright, my mistake. Dream Focus 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were notified because you participated in this AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I notified editors who made content changes to the band or album articles or who participated in previous AfD's about them--did not realize there had been so many previous AfD's when I started. I excluding template-fixers, non-involved admins, and banned/blocked users. Sorry if I over-notified --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all and salt again. This was repeatedly recreated and the last AFD (despite being the subject of a concerted sock-puppetry campaign) still resulted in delete. I know the request seemed good-faith but I really can't see why this was unsalted. A new local review and something from what is essentially some guy's self-published e-zine wouldn't be enough to overturn deletion and salting at DRV (which is where the recreation request should have been made). "I like this album quite a bit. These guys are pretty amazing..." Well then. St★lwart 111 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of the individuals you invited to participate, did you invite anybody who voted "keep" in past AfD's? If not, this should be considered Votestacking per WP:Votestacking. Wikitam331 ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I notified everybody who voted in the AfDs, unless they were blocked or banned, including the "keep" voters. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The sourcing in the article's is extremely weak. Unless someone presents new coverage, I don't believe there is enough there to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Coverage to date, in my view, falls short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. Insufficient in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources - with emphasis on both independent and reliable. There seems to be a misconception on Wikipedia that a plethora of links in the 'References' section automatically adds up to notability. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. While I wasn't sure at an initial glance, the discussion between Hobbes Goodyear, Stalwart111, and Wikitam331 above does an excellent job of explaining why the sourcing at present does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. While I'm neutral on whether the titles merit salting again, the delete question isn't even close. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all - No assertion of notability in the context of WP:BAND or WP:GNG. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (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.