Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramsci melodic

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gramsci melodic

Fails WP:BAND. Rankings in Pittsburgh City Paper are not sufficient to confer notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The article has an additional source listed. Being that the Pittsburgh City Paper is considered an acceptable independent media source, I am hoping that this quells some concerns over legitimacy. Additionally, the article confirms that the band did win the Joker Rock Off (in response to Mufka's inquiry. Abtmcm (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Comment - Sources:: BMI Registration has been included in addition to several additional articles Abtmcm (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Hello, There are other print copies of articles and coverage that are going to be included, but are not posted on the web for some reason. The print copies are available. Furthermore, the information provided was taken from legitimate articles. The articles were written by objective journalists. The article was not written by a party with any vested interest. There are no claims made that are overstated or fictitious.

Also, the information is encyclopedic in nature. Granted, the Pittsburgh City Paper Rankings may not be of utmost importance, but it is a legitimate list compiled by a Wikipedia-recognized, independent media type in a fairly large metropolitan area. Abtmcm (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Hi Mufka. I reviewed all of your comments, and I would agree with your suggestion to redirect the band members, with the exception of the band's founder(added - 20 Feb) - I apologize for my oversight in regards to the creation of those articles. However, I still believe that the band as a whole merits its own article. As stated previously, the band has been the subject of independent, verifiable, and objective coverage. The article meets criteria provided under WP:BAND - specifically, point "1" and "9". Also,WP:BAND clearly states that the subject must only meet one of the criteria to be considered notable. The guidelines are ambiguous at times. The concept of "notability" is, itself, quite subjective. I understand that there should be safeguards to prevent e-vandalism, spamming, and other such abuses. However, an article should not be discounted simply because it is "relatively obscure." The mere fact that the article is labeled as a "stub" should be sufficient in notifying readers that the subject is outside of the mainstream. If Wikipedia only allows articles to be created for individuals or groups who have already achieved broad acclaim or have attained widespread name recognition, then the uniqueness that set this community apart from traditional encyclopedic sources has been compromised. I sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions, even if I disagree with some of them. While I have visited Wikipedia for many years, I am new to the world of article submission and editing, so I am certainly prone to "beginner" mistakes. That said, please consider my argument. Incidentally, could you explain the AfD process? I read the description provided on the main AfD page and it said that the disputed article could be deleted within 5 days. However, I was unable to determine how the final decision was reached. Furthermore, if the article were deemed Wiki-worthy, would I be susceptible to these types of disputes on a daily basis? This conversation was certainly necessary, but I could easily see how it could become redundant if this label can be applied in the future by those who fail to check the publication/editing/log history of the article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Abtmcm (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

You are correct that the guidelines are hazy in some areas. They are open to interpretation. Looking at the references provided, it would appear that this band does not meet WP:BAND 1 and 9. Here is why: The coverage is only in local newspapers - the first appears to be not much more than a press release. The award was a reader's poll in a local newspaper. The Jokers Rockoff also appears to be a local contest, but I can't find a good reference that says it is otherwise to clear that up. I will comment on the AfD process on your talk page so it doesn't clutter up the discussion here. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (added to response posted by 24.154.187.75 for organizational clarity based on the following message) I agree with this last comment. I am from Pittsburgh and a fan of the band, and they are very well-known in the area. More importantly, the article does not include anything that is not supported by an outside, independent, unbiased source. It's not like the author used shamless self-promotion. Isn't the point of wikipedia to inform the uninformed? I am a high school teacher, and am one of the few in my school who truly realize the value that wikipedia offers. Most other teachers discourage students from using it, I do the opposite. But now seeing what is happening here, I'm beginning to rethink my stance. Is this truly an open forum where resource-supported facts are welcome? Or is this more of the same rubbish I find with other online resources and hard encyclopedias where the few decide for the many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.187.75 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references establish some notability. As mentioned, they seem to meet #9 of wp:band as well --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion of notability seems to rest mostly on the fact that the band placed in an alternative newspaper's reader's poll alongside winners for "best wifi spot", "best karaoke bar" and "best kid's menu". From what I can tell the "Joker Rock Off" is a local Pittsburgh battle of the bands contest (and I can't find reference to support that they won.) Either way it doesn't seem to meet #9 as a major competition. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The band did win the Joker Rock Off (which is a regional competition) but the sources are offline (except for the actual Rock Off page which would not be accepted as a source). Second, the first source clearly states that they are in the final round (which would satisfy the Place criteria set forth in #9. Therefore, even if they had not won, the argument can be made that they would still satisfy the requirement. As for defining a "major competition", does it require Simon Cowell producing the competition for it to be called a "major competition"? In essence, isn't American Idol a better produced (and far more profitable) Battle of the Bands? Who is defining "major"? Granted, the competition was not played at Madison Square Garden, but it was performed at a club in a sizable mid-level rock club in Pittsburgh. No one is claiming that the band is or will be famous - but they are certainly notable based on the sources provided. Furthermore, a reader's poll in the city paper is much more noteworthy than having a single journalist decide to write a brief article. I am going to abandon my previous argument for a moment and now subscribe to the viewpoint that numbers entitle noteworthiness. Thousands of opinions led to inclusion in the readers' poll. One or two opinions (author/editor) could be all that led to inclusion in a traditional article. For that matter, the poll is certainly a greater indication of the band's popularity (notability as defined by this site) than any of the other sources - even if it is listed next to "Best Karaoke Bar" (which, incidentally, also was decided by the masses instead of the few). Abtmcm (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Keep - I posted the article (full disclosure) - I would disagree with the assertion that "local" coverage automatically implies a lack of notability (pertaining to the comment "The coverage is only in local newspapers".) Being that both sources are available on-line and in-print, the potential audience is unlimited (if distribution is the point of contention). Most newspapers are, in essence, "local" newspapers. Does a "regional" magazine received with junk mail carry more validity (i.e. "notability") than a "local" city newspaper (in a city of 250,000) simply because of the geographic base? It appears that the criteria in WP:Band were left vague in order to allow an open forum where topics could be accessed and discussed regardless of their international appeal, so long as the information provided was cited, accurate, and independent. I mean no disrespect, and the nature of my argument has less to do with the band's inclusion than it does with the underlying ideas that gave life to forums like Wikipedia. Is something only relevant when 500,000 people are aware of it? Should that number be 50,000 or 1,000,000? Restrictions are implemented so swiftly (and thankfully I noticed the request for speedy deletion in time to save the article). and as little as two people can quietly eliminate a set of cited information. It is interesting to me that the site now makes it easier to censor/delete than it does to express/publish. Is that what Wikipedia has become? It seems to me that as long as the information provided can be cited by independent sources it should merit inclusion (even if the article only consists of a person, group, or concept whose name recognition is confined to a relatively small corner of the world).Abtmcm (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

To clarify my comment above, I'm not saying that a local newspaper cannot be a reliable source, just that the format of the article seemed more like a press release and therefore isn't a good source to establish notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the references and above arguments, i am unconvinced that either the references are enough per WP:RS or that any criterion of WP:BAND is passed. tomasz. 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument is based around the stated guidelines as listed at WP:BAND. In any case...

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."::::

and::

"Has won or placed in a major music competition."::::

Based on the exact wording of the guideline, this criteria has been met::::

furthermore::

"notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"::::

If one meets the stated criteria then there should certainly be no reason to deny said author. I am not asking for a change in the guidelines. Quite to the contrary, I am asking that the guidelines be followed and not changed retroactively. Thanks again. Abtmcm (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

You forgot an important part of the guideline, especially the part that begins with except ... press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves ... works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates ... 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. One of the sources is a school newspaper. Some national recognition must reasonably be a part of the requirement for notability as is inferred by statements like national music chart, national radio or tv network, national concert tour, etc. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However...

The new article post is not a university newspaper, and you stated earlier that the CP was a reliable independent source.
Also, that still does not address the fact that only one of the criteria is needed. Based on the wording that existed when I composed and posted the article, Gramsci Melodic did indeed meet the requirement set forth in section 9 (assuming no one has since decided to alter the wording.)
As for "national" exposure being inferred, I would respond by saying that does not hold up in terms of arbitration. The rules were followed as they were written. "National" appeared no where in rule 9. Additionally, is a national music competition in Liechtenstein more prestigious than a music competition in NYC? That said, I fully realize the decision is not mine to make regarding the future of this article. Still, the time I spent scanning and searching needs defended. Certainly it is within any administrator's authority to alter or reinterpret the rules and apply them retroactively, or use any number of additional criteria to erase information (just as publishers of text books, print-based encyclopedias, and other reference books have done for generations.) Still, I respect everyone's opinion on this matter.Abtmcm (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Comment. Thank-you for your reply; i understand that the argument is based on the stated guidelines at WP:BAND, but, as i said, i don't believe any of them are met. In other words, i don't believe that #1 is passed because i don't believe the references, though getting there, constitute "multiple non-trivial published works" (uni paper with an alumnus angle; list placements; one-para local paper piece); and i don't believe #9 is passed because "a major music competition" is something like the Grammys or Junos (examples by WP:BAND), and not e.g. the 2008 Joker Productions Rock Off. tomasz. 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I would just like to point out that the Grammy or Juno example was listed for awards, not competition. Also, while the competition might not be seen as being "noteworthy" or "major" in your view, it was considered such to many in the region. This again, begs the question, "How does one quantify notoriety?" It comes back to a very fundamental disagreement over the importance and utility of Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia as the ultimate alternative source for reliable information. To me, it is not about how many millions of people will read this article. Rather, it is about providing it for the few who cannot find reliable information on this subject anywhere else. Chances are, if an article is generating thousands of hits per day, an interested party could easily find reliable information throughout the web - therefore, Wikipedia is neither displaying its full utility nor its full potential as an alternative reference forum. Best regards. Abtmcm (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

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.