Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban voodoo machine

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep. Further info against deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmnixon (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 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]

This is the place for formal discussion of the dispute. There is no "formal complaint" process aside from deletion review, but when an author is simply restating their case already made in an AfD discussion, DRV's are usually rejected out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uvmnixon, if you're finding it necessary to wikilawyer the WP:BAND criteria just to see if you can make the subject satisfy a single criterion, that in itself may be a sign that the subject is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article -- at least not yet. Please consider having a look at the General notability guideline (similar to WP:BAND criterion 1), which offers the most succinct explanation of what constitutes notability. If you can provide evidence of, as WP:GNG puts it, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," please add the appropriate references to the article and then post a comment on this discussion page saying you've done so. That would probably put an end to the discussion here, and would be a more effective way of establishing notability than getting hung up on arguments about how many band members can dance on the head of a pin. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 18:53, 15 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]

Cautious keep It states in the article that they have performed internationally, which meets half the requirements of WP:BAND number 4. If there is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source, then it does make the band notable. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stephen Herewith a link to the review by The Washington Post review of the band's US tour with the Pogues. Is the Washington Post considered a reliable source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/profile/the-urban-voodoo-machine,1147962/critic-review.html

This isn't just a review, it is The Editor's Pick!

Uvmnixon (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get that added as a reference onto the article. Also, it would be helpful if you can get the references done in the same manner as other articles. WP:YFA describes a simple method of doing it. A more thorough method is described at WP:CITE

Comment. In my opinion, reviews in a paper's local entertainment calendar don't constitute "significant coverage". Just as a random example, here is the Post's review (also by Fritz Hahn, oddly enough) of Ceiba, a bar/restaurant on 14th St. It's more than five times as long as the Urban voodoo machine review. Ceiba doesn't have a Wikipedia article either. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more references to back up sources. My arguments remain as follows:-

Three band members were formerly in notable groups.

Two occasional members are notable in themselves. Whilst they are occasional members, they are still contributory members, and played both on the latest album and on recent tour dates and have done for some time.

They have received positive reviews in both National and International press and on like websites. (Rrburke's point about "significant" is misleading WP:Band point 4 states "non-trivial" coverage, which does not amount to the same thing as "significant". In my view non-trivial refers to something as more than a passing mention.

Both digital download singles have been playlisted by several DJs on Radio 6 which is run by The British Broadcasting Corporation.

Further to this I will state that I am disappointed that with the exception of Stephen, the criticism seems to be disparaging rather than constructive. Surely all criticism should be above all, fair, positive and constructive, and helpful, otherwise this does Wikipedia itself a disservice?Uvmnixon (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your characterization of those who disagree with you as "disparaging" 1) is incorrect, and 2) will do you no good in trying to persuade others to your view. If such actions disappoint you, then maybe Wikipedia is nt the best venue for your work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not post comments such as my view of certain editor's comments to be disparaging to persuade others to my view, I do so because that is how I feel I've been treated. The majority of people posting here are abrupt to the point of rudeness, and have offered nothing constructive in the way of assistance, other than Stephen, who at least was courteous enough to suggest that I link items that are relevant to my article.Uvmnixon (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse abruptness with mere brevity. I don't think any of us have anything against you personally. It's just the nature of the great majority of comments in a typical AfD discussion, especially if voters think it's a cut-and-dried issue, as some do here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 20 January 2010 (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.