Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban voodoo machine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:38, 15 January 2010

Urban voodoo machine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Article is by someone with a close association with the group. No charted songs, no recognized record label. Handful of passing mentions by websites and blogs, only one of which could even be considered a reliable source. Original author repeatedly removed the speedy delete tag and was warned multiple times. Speedy was eventually declined (a decision I strongly disagree with). Nothing in this article indicates that this group meets the criteria of WP:BAND. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further info against deletion.

Wiki policy 6.

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nick Marsh was lead singer of Flesh For Lulu which is listed on Wiki.

Barney Hollington is listed with Miranda Sex Garden which again has an entry on wiki

Both must be sufficiently notable if they already have wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmnixon (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Uvmnixon (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(That is, point 6 here). The guideline says that a band containing two independently notable members is notable, and a person in two independently notable bands is notable. But what you're presenting is a band containing two members, each of whom was in a different (assertedly) notable band but is not notable themselves. Because this is two stages removed it's not covered by the guideline you cite - do you agree?

Also, it's dangerous to conclude that something "must be sufficiently notable if [it] already [has] wikipedia entries". After all, if articles on non-notable topics were never created we wouldn't have this sort of discussion in the first place! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:BAND: two members played in bands that were notable, but that doesn't make the individuals themselves notable -- so WP:BAND 6 is not satisfied, as [User:Olaf Davis]] notes. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [1]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to all of the above:- 1) I am not a friend, or connected with the band, merely a fan and contributor to their forum on their website.

2) This discussion(dispute) seems to have started the minute I inadvertently deleted a "marked for deletion" marker. This was my first article, I was unaware that a couple of heiroglyphics in brackets amounted to a marker. In fact it took me three hours before I found out that in order to stop things being boxed you had to take out indenting.

3)The disagreement with my point 6 of wiki's notability criteria is semantics. Just because the notable article relates to a band does not make its' members not notable. Nick Marsh was lead singer of Flesh for Lulu, Barney Hollington was in Miranda Sex Garden, and founding member Jim Jones was in Thee Hypnotics. Perhaps someone can explain why the first three are notable yet the Urban Voodoo Machine which contains members of the first three is not. Also if we use this criteria quite strictly, then there are numerous bands that have wiki entries that are not eligible. Are they all going to then be deleted? Furthermore Occasional Members, includes Spider Stacy from The Pogues and Son of Dave, both of whom played on the Urban Voodoo Machine album, and both have their own individual wikipedia entries. 4)Point 11 in wiki's criteria "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." The Urban Voodoo Machine have had two singles on the playlist for BBC Radio 6. Here's the links:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l1qw7 http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/tom_robinson/tracklisting.shtml?y=2009&d=20090717

5)Wikipedia's own guidelines for deletion state:- "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"

Finally, if all this placed together is insufficient for a decision to be made to keep this article with or without revisions that you feel appropriate, then please could you direct me to links whereby I can formalise this dispute and make a formal complaint, as I feel that this is unnecessarily heavy handed. Uvmnixon (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This band does not contain two or more independently notable musicians. Rather, if this article is kept, then those musicians who were in other notable bands might be notable under WP:MUSICBIO #6. You can't bootstrap your way in like that. By the way, WP:BAND does not say that any band with two notable musicians is notable, only that such a band "may be notable." In light of the lack of reliable coverage, buzz, charting, coverage of their tour, etc., even then this band's claim to notability would be highly doubtful. Without additional coverage—and most of the references the article provides don't even mention the band—I don't believe this band has "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the . . . ensemble itself and reliable." Glenfarclas (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]