Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokingroove

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

On 31 January, User:The Herald, who is not an administrator, closed this discussion as keep. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, which states, inter alia, that "[non-admin d]ecisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator", I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I've done this because I believe it to be wrong and non-compliant with usual standards. In particular, User:BluntWorthy, and User:94.204.55.125, each of whom have no recent edits outside this topic, have placed two "votes" each, which are liable to be discounted. The preponderant consensus decision is therefore delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smokingroove

[edit]
Smokingroove (edit | 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 article has been speedy deleted three times, including once by me (Recently). There is no real credible claim to importance (in my mind) outside of maybe being popular on the UAE club scene. The other claim to being extras in the upcoming Star Wars film seems to be sourced to something that is referencing one of the brother's twitter feeds (i.e. like a magazine saying "hey these guys say they are in the new star wars film"), which seems highly unreliable. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smokingroove boys were an integral part of the London radio scene and helped to shape the dance music culture in London through the late 90s. I'm still rewriting the page (forgive my newby-ness) and adding sources. I've been a fan of their music for a while and wanted to contribute and share some of the information i've found. They currently release records that sell in over 35 countries so i think that is indeed worthy of inclusion here on Wiki. Other artists of a similar level are listed here so i think it's only fair that we also feature Smokingroove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also see the TMZ links for evidence on their participation in the Star Wars movie. I'm told that due to contractual obligations, they cannot expand upon their roles in the forthcoming movie. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add, they've been verified by both Twitter and Facebook as 'personalities of note' (with the addition of the blue tick) and as we all know, this is an independent verification by them and not something that can be applied for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it's debatable that they pass WP:MUSICBIO; a lot of the references are either passing mentions, blogs, or interviews. They have not won any significant awards, and I do not believe a Star Wars cameo really counts as "notability." However, the article is still being worked on and could potentially demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The page qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO as they've proved Number 7 "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." with the verified awards without a shadow of a doubt. Their approx 10 years on London's radio scene should also be taken into consideration. BluntWorthy (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where your clearly comes from, Number 7 is almost a non-rule, since it relies on at least one other rule being fulfilled. Additionally, I would argue that the awards are small-time magazine awards that are not sufficiently significant to meet Criteria 8.Primefac (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While i do respect your opinion (and the help you gave towards finding extra resources), i have to add that these are the biggest publishers and magazines for the entire middle East. The awards given are based on votes, media influence and national influence through their years of work to build a scene from nothing. Up until the last decade, the middle east was exactly what you thought it was; basic and nowhere near being on-par with Europe or the states. Now it's a huge scene with hundreds of clubs, bars and hangout spots. The Smokingroove boys have worked to create something special and have top ranking, playing all of the major festivals and clubs. My hats off to them for the endless work they've done to build something special. BluntWorthy (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article still reads as blatant advertising. If my eyes don't deceive me, this looks exactly the same as the version that was deleted weeks ago, so why would this be speedy delete? Not sure how to check the differences, but I'd say either delete it or move it to a draft space so we can get rid of the puffery and exaggerations, and go from there. Sock (tock talk) 03:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect, i've worked long and hard to make this as factual as possible. I understand they had someone else attempt to write a page for them in the past that came across as blatant advertising. I've researched all of the facts and have come up with a lot more info than some of their peers here on Wiki. My only argument here is the downplaying of the influence they've had on a national level and the years running up to it. Again, there are artists of a similar level Roger Sanchez, Greg Stainer, Dj_Sneak to name a couple who have pages and i have worked to get them also listed here. 94.204.55.125 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They don't meet either the musician-specific guidelines, nor is the general coverage enough to pass GNG. I recommend salting as well. Maybe in six months or so this can be revisited once there's actual significant coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Smokingroove&oldid=1069074760"