Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falbaek (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 15 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Press Play on Tape

Press Play on Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 and contested. Asserted to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I don't think that wikipedia administrators count as reliable sources. As for other sources indicating that the criteria for WP:BAND have been met, I can't see them. Can you supply a few please? Until then, delete andy (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I run that google search but try to filter out wikipedia and non-reliable sources, I get less than 500 hits, none of which seem to me to help show notability per WP:BAND - see here. andy (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, if you do a correct search you'll see that your search lacks something. I get around 19,000 hits. TheoEngell (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Try working your way through to the last page of hits - there are far fewer than 500 hits, not 19,000. This is a well known google problem - it announces zillions of hits when there's actually only a handful. andy (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are using a tool, which you alreay know is faulty, to support your argumentation? That's a bit bold. As a computer scientist I need to tell you that it could be either part of the site that is faulty, or even both. TheoEngell (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
No, google is simply a route to sources, not a source in itself. But what the hell, let's not use google at all. Please supply reliable sources to support the notability claim, per WP:BAND. At the moment there's a single newspaper article and three other sources that fail WP:RS andy (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't talked about what Google is or is not, please stick to the issue. Usually when one refer to something it should be specific, that would be your main point. When you refer to WP:RS you should specify what exactly your point is; right now you could just refer to the main root of Wikipedia leaving no indication of what your point is. So, if your think WP:RS is relevant, point of what part of it. Beside that point, I find it very hard to see any WP:AGF in this speedy deletion case, from both your and SchuminWeb's side. Marking a page for speedy deletion just because it lacks whatever-you-think-it-lacks would make it perfectly legal to delete a lot of the Wikipedia content. Which is the opposite point of WP:AGF (top page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoEngell (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please don't impute lack of good faith. The nomination makes it very clear that whatever-it-lacks is listed explicitly at WP:BAND. If you want to show that the article should be kept all you have to do is provide reliable sources to prove notability. What's the problem? Just put in a couple of references that meet criteria at WP:BAND. For example, something to show that they have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" or have "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour" or have "released two or more albums on a major label" etc etc. There are 11 very explicit music-related criteria plus the usual general one of having had plenty of independent coverage from reliable sources. andy (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I cannot take your word, or anyone else's word, for it per WP:V. If one can't verify it, it doesn't belong, plain and simple. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a claim in the article, then I would agree. But I am (IMO) a trusted Wikipedia contributor unassociated with the band, adding a fact that I personally know. I am a reliable source for this fact. I think that should be enough for you to assume good faith, and take my word for it in the context of an afd debate. Thue | talk 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ - this is basic stuff from WP:RS. Firstly, the emphasis is on using published sources so other users can check for themselves. For example, the guidelines say "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves", which isn't precisely the case here but shows clearly how the guidelines are to be interpreted. Then at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources we can clearly see the requirement for editorial oversight and, ideally, having a structure in place where facts can be independently verified. We can take your opinion about this band, in good faith, merely as a statement about your opinion. andy (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly believe it is acceptable to violate WP:V and WP:OR, then you should resign your adminship. This is basic stuff, and it's hard to trust, as a community member and fellow admin, that you will do the right thing with the sysop tools if you refuse to follow basic policies about verifiability and original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should consider your own adminship. Deleting a page just because you assume that verifiablity isn't possible within a certain timeframe for a page or topic is only counter-productive and disrespectful for those who has contributed building the page. Maybe it does take some time to dig out verifiability, maybe editors do not spend the amount of time on wp that you do hence updates are not that often, maybe verifiability isn't even on the 'net as it is the case with this band. To be honest, to me it looks like you just want the page deleted because you know some rule that supports that. It's not like the world ends with that page being on wp for a period of time without verifiability. You comment about not having the time for undeleting the correct page surely supports your biased adolescence on this matter. There, i said it. TheoEngell (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comments such as this are not acceptable in wikipedia. Please confine yourself to the matter at issue and do not attack other editors. I have placed a warning on your talk page. andy (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete, on a second review, I can't take the views of a Wikipedia administrator as proof of verifiability. Whether you know something or not, if you can't verify it, it doesn't belong. Besides that, the "I'm an administrator, so you'll have to trust me on this one" attitude of some posts here is alarming. Esteffect (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final comment from me would be that performing as the headline act at a Copenhagen University event has been given as an assertion of notability. I'm not sure that headline a University event is a result to claim notability, if I'm honest - In the city I'm from, for example, headline acts often lack an article. Esteffect (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that headlining a university gig might be a weak claim to notability, and I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't really agree with your reasoning on this. With that kind of logic a bands notability is decided whether they're on WP or not, not if they headline a university gig. In other words, if you don't have a WP article you're not note worthy, and you can't get a WP article if you're not note worthy. That said, headlining a univesity gig is far from this bands biggest claim of notability, and I think the revised version shows this. MarcLager (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Hello and apologies if I violate any rules, it's not my intention; I'm not an editor but I use the Wikipedia very often, so I'd like to add my "user" point of view. I am not associated with the band. I'm the head of remix64.com (known as LMan there) for 10 years now, we are a webzine and a community around C64 remixing with hundreds of musicians and bands (who host their music at remix.kwed.org. If I were to pick one for notability, PRESS PLAY ON TAPE would be the first to come to mind; they are quite the "Stars" there. I kindly ask you people to reconsider the purpose of WP:BAND, namely that not every little musician claims his own page - this is definitely not the case here. In fact I was shocked to see the page removed. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE meets at least §7 of WP:BAND. I've personally seen them play in Birmingham and twice in London. They also meet §5; their works are published at [C64Audio] which is the most important indie label regarding music related to the C64. C64Audio represents notable C64 music legends like Rob_Hubbard or Martin_Galway and many others. Also check our news coverage over the years [PRESS PLAY ON TAPE related news. Apart from that all I'd also like to question SchuminWeb's motive for the deletion, from what I've heard there was a minor quarrel between him and the band about the capitalization of the band name, which then resulted in the deletion. As for my reliability, as I said I run remix64.com for 10 years, and I invite you to ask anyone at our community about my reliability. LMan (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. If anyone claims that a band, company, person, whatever is sufficiently notable to deserve their own encyclopedia article they must be able to prove it by giving references that other users can check for themselves. WP:BAND gives guidance about this. Despite lots of requests, none of this band's supporters have provided a single reference since this AfD debate started. If you claim that this band meets criterion #7 - "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - for example, please provide references so other users can check it for themselves (in the case of that particular criterion you may also have to show that their style is notable, and since they appear to be the only proponents of it, that might be a little circular...). andy (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply. But why don't the numerous references at remix64.com and the CD releases at c64Audio.com which I provided count for that? Everyone can check this for themselves? Also run a search for PRESS PLAY ON TAPE at remix.kwed.org, then hover the song titles to see how many times they were downloaded, "Out Run" for example counts about 59000 downloads, meaning 59000 people who are potentially interested in reading about them on the Wikipedia. Another popular reference that comes to mind was in the game Hitman: Blood Money, see (Screen shot). Frankly I don't see why there is so much resistance against leaving this article online. LMan (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is actually also a mention of PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in Kane_&_Lynch:_Dead_Men but as part of a cut-scene, look for a roll of tape thrown from Kane to Lynch. TheoEngell (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • First of all, the article contains exactly zero references to c64audio.com and remix64.com. I'm also not certain if these sources meet wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "in general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source"), but that's ultimately for the closing admin to decide. Meanwhile if you have references that you think meet wikipedia's criteria please add them to the article! Why is this difficult to understand?
  • Be easy on me, the workings of the wikipedia appear vast and a little confusing for a noob like me, so sorry if I'm missing the obvious. So what I'd have to do is put references to remix.kwed.org / c64audio.com / remix64.com into the footnotes that back up the information given in the article, right? LMan (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • At least the label's homepage / online shop (c64Audio.com) should validate as a reliable source, shouldn't it? PPOT has also been mentioned in various print media, I've asked the community to browse theirs and provide references. Hopefully this will help resolve the matter. LMan (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • An online shop certainly doesn't count as an independent source. I also think that the search results you've linked to on remix64.com don't count in the slightest as serious coverage - many are just mentions of gigs and lot of the results aren't even about the band at all. andy (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just an online shop, it's the label's homepage - why doesn't it validate #5 of WP:BAND? Why do the download stats of remix.kwed.org mean nothing to you regarding significance of the band? Above, someone unsigned remarked that there are "exactly zero references to c64audio.com and remix64.com", now that there are, you're telling me they're not valid. I was reading the Wikipedia:NEWBIES page to see if I was doing wrong; but the noob page in fact says that noobs should be bold and should be welcomed, that it's an important principle of the wikipedia. So as a noob, I'm asking you kindly to help me keep this page online, as for now I feel you're doing anything to make me fail: by labeling anything I do or say as not notable or reliable. I'm asking myself where is the famous good faith? LMan (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • There are many bands in the game tune genre so it's not that PPOT is the only one out there. But that is not up to the article to prove that even though they are referenced on the page, you have to find that our for yourself. Since PPOT on several occasions has been playing with both Rob Hubbard and Ben Daglish that should clearly indicate notability-also within the genre. The band has as well performed at Roskilde Festival (ref'd on page) and some of the largest venue in Denmark (articles about such concerts usually are deleted on the 'net after a period of time, but go check the pictures on the band's website---which I'm sure should not be included on the page just to claim notability and/or verifiability). So again, it's WP:AGF and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button. TheoEngell (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You're being rude again. Stop it please. Also, see WP:BURDEN: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Why not divert some of your energy into adding references? andy (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's undignified for a member of what you are claiming as such a notable and relevant band to be posting in a "but my band is important!" kind of way. I've actually heard "Bionic Commando" from your second album, and it wasn't a bad track, but I still don't think the coverage outside of said circles is large enough. Esteffect (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, with this sentence, "Apart from that all I'd also like to question SchuminWeb's motive for the deletion, from what I've heard there was a minor quarrel between him and the band about the capitalization of the band name, which then resulted in the deletion." you start your time on Wikipedia by not assuming good faith, and are incorrect since I was the person who corrected the band's name according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. As for WP:BAND, the band does not pass #5 because the c64Audio label is not a major label or one of the more important indie labels. As for #7, there is no reliable source to back up this assertion. CNN only has a trivial mention and remix64.com is not a reliable source, so this article should still be deleted. Aspects (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably I was mistaken about SchuminWeb. My apologies. Still: while c64Audio.com is a small label, it's the most important label regarding this specific style. The man behind it was after all important / relevant enough to be made a key witness in the Timbaland plagiarism controversy because of his expertise. As I said C64audio.com represents many notable c64 artists, known to millions. As someone who's been at the center of the scene we're talking about for 10 years, you should at least assume I know what I'm talking about, I'm not making this all up. And I claim that this style, as well as PPOT, is relevant, and important. Maybe not to you, maybe not to the mainstream, but to many, many people. Where is the threshold of interest for the Wikipedia? 100 people? 1000? A million? LMan (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment All right, go ahead and delete it then. You guys have your mind set, you think you're doing right, think you're improving wikipedia by removing information from this encyclopedia that might be of interest to tens of thousands of people. You're disregarding any hints or evidence of notability, even if it's from CNN. I'm not receiving answers on the good points I make, only on those you think you can disarm. You can also state that remix64.com is not a reliable source. While this may be true for the mainstream, it is *the* source for information around C64 remixing; you're asking for news coverage while you're ignoring me as an expert of the field. All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and not only in mine), because it indicates that niche information has no place on the Wikipedia, just because several editors think it lacks major coverage in the mainstream media. Relying only on this apperas a fatal error, because it will "mainstream" the Wikipedia as well, creating a mainstream dependance. I am 100% certain that this here is not what the set of rules you're relying on was made for. You're doing the wrong thing and you know it. If this deletion gets through, I actually regret the donations I've made to the project, because it's not what I thought it is: independent and free. LMan (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You know, you really should read WP:N someday. It very clearly explains why some articles are acceptable and some are not, even if they have lots of enthusiastic support. By the way, none of the participants in this debate will delete the article - an independent administrator will review the arguments and decide what to do (currently, probably deletion). And, as a last attempt to make the point, the article will not be deleted if you simply stop whingeing and add some proper references! andy (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rebuke TheoEngell for being rude for "So again, it's WP:AGF and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button" yet you're calling my arguments whingeing. I have read WP:N, and I'm trying to explain that our niche scene can not offer many mainstream references for verification, only indie references. In this case, the source is the band itself or people close to it, and I'm offering my expertise, c64Audio.com, Remix64.com and remix.kwed.org to back up the notability of the information. The Verifiability and Notability is all there, if you'd want to see it. Yet you don't; you're not moving your POV an inch. You're not trying to help. You're not even showing a little faith. Rather you're calling me a whinger. Thanks. LMan (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The Oxford American Dictionary says:
whinge |(h)winj| Brit., informal
verb ( whingeing ) [ intrans. ]
complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way : stop whingeing and get on with it!
"Mainstream" references aren't essential - WP:N makes that clear. What is essential is substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent sources. WP:BAND specifically excludes "works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings...", and that pretty much covers what's in the references you've provided so far. A few trivial mentions on a single website comes nowhere near meeting these criteria. If you're saying that the only way that an independent reader of the article can be satisfied that this is a notable band is to take the word of some of the band's supporters then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far. andy (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could reply by quoting the harmless dictionary entries for words like "adolescent", "Kafka" and "Twinkle", which you found so offending that you posted a warning. But there's no point. You are not really discussing. You're defending your position, no matter what; justifying everything with paragraphs and quotes, but completely lacking common sense. What you label as "perfectly clear" is after all only your interpretation of the guidelines (look that up in the dictionary). As I said I'm not merely a supporter of the band, I am considered a resprected representative of that whole style of music. Which you happily ignore. What makes you so sure your interpretation of the guidelines is right? LMan (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As a respected representative of the style you're no doubt aware of respected independent publications where it, and this band, have been discussed. You know, reviews, awards, that sort of thing. How about sharing them with us? andy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that from the start this article was not sufficiently verifiable, but in its edited state, as it stands now, I would say it's verified. I think a previous speaker tried to trivialize the CNN mention, but how many indie bands, no matter how briefly, are mentioned in a CNN article? You can quote paragraphs all you want, but in the end, in this case, it all seems to come down to petty personal opinions. I thought Wikipedia was beyond that. I think this is a keeper. MarcLager (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    • Here's the problem: Notability requires significant coverage, like a whole article about the topic. A mere mention does not help to establish notability, no matter who it comes from. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's where I claim personal opinions come into play. Being featured on national TV, getting mentioned (if not featured exclusively) in several publications, in several different countries, should and could be significant coverage. We can't demand the same kind of broad mainstream coverage when dealing with a niched, underground phenomenon - which, might I add, would be in line with one of Wikipedias five pillas; "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Thus, the demand for mainstream coverage should be bendable when it comes to covering non-mainstream topics. MarcLager (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I would like to know what kind of (indirect) notability it gives when CNN calls an indie band on the phone several times to do an interview? TheoEngell (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Improved article /end state band legitimacy for Wikipedia article is acceptable. The debate over the capitalization was lost when put up against the hard evidence of what actually appears in all caps on a Commodore 64 screen - the recognizable message PRESS PLAY ON TAPE, and the debate apparently sunk into a personal disagreement after that (otherwise, speedy deletion would have been the topic of debate, not capitalization). Agree with previous opinion, this is not what Wikipedia is about. As the owner of a longstanding Commodore 64 blog and a podcast with thousands of downloads (C64 Walkabout) and someone who is only tangentially into the "remix scene" I want to throw my 2 cents in that this band is well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community. Michitakem (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the name of the article should be "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE". --ElfQrin (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reason to keep the page? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't find any reliable third-party sources to impart notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's an off-wikipedia discussion here which looks rather like canvassing. From the comment at the bottom of the third page I have an idea that the forum is actually run by user:TheoEngell, although the difference in server clocks makes it hard to be certain. At any rate it's clearly run by one of the major spa contributors to this debate. Some of the forum comments are constructive and focussed on providing proper sources for the article but overall the intention is clearly to subvert this debate. andy (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first rule of Wikipedia is you do not talk about Wikipedia"? C'mon, this comment is simply preposterous. Your only interest is to see this article deleted, and you're lending no hand in trying to improve it or prove that this is in fact a notable band. I claim you've taken a personal interest in the deletion of this article, and will see it done by any means possible. Had you spent the same amount of energy in trying to find reliable sources for this article as you are trying to wreck it, you'd find it. I don't know how I'd go about reporting you to a "hight authority" on this, and I don't intend to find out either because frankly this is quote tiresome, but you, sir are clearly out of line here. MarcLager (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Canvassing?! This forum, for your info, is run be me and a couple of other non PPOT people. There have been some quick-tempered comments, yes, but you can track back that I'm calling people to help the case by providing better references and information; I even PMed some of the participants not to hurt the case by inapropriate measures. So far there has been no mass-posting, no campaigning, votestacking or secrecy. We're looking for help to save the article, that's all. Andy, would you stop being so destructive, please? LMan (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • In the midst of all the verbiage on this page I hadn't noticed your earlier note that you ran the forum and website. I've struck my comment about this. However the point about canvassing stands. For example "Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)". IMHO (and I might be wrong) asking supporters to help dig out reliable sources is fine, but many of the destructive comments which encourage editors to take a particular POV isn't a proper way to conduct what should be an open, neutral debate focussed on whether wikipedia's guidelines are met. The negative language used throughout this debate helps make my point. andy (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they can't. This debate will be closed by an independent administrator - once he's finished laughing and has told all his friends about it! Seriously though, there are various ways of complaining about the actions of us non-believers if you want to. You could start by reading about AFD etiquette at WP:AFDEQ and WP:EQ and then if you think we're behaving inappropriately you could consider various forms of Dispute Resolution or maybe even asking for administrator intervention via WP:ANI. andy (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to rely on google translations, but it seems to me that #6 is about just a single track and a quick chat. In any case, criterion 12 is more appropriate and I'm not sure if these references apply. Can you clarify the nature and depth of the coverage? andy (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the show on TV2 (Danish national television), is 7 minutes of length and is an interview and a performance of one song. The story is more or less to explore the fascination that makes these guys play Commodore 64 music. The show on "Harddisken" on DR (Danish national radio) is a one hour long program that focus on technology and on its impact on our every day lives. In this episode Press Play On Tape, plays the part of a house band, and performs 4 songs during the show as well as being interviewed. The 8 Bit Philosophy documentary, tells about the remix scene that has formed around the music from the Commodore 64 and Amiga. As a prominent member of this scene Press Play On Tape is mentioned. This documentary has been aired on German television. The show on DR could count as a week number 12 criterion, and the other two I still think counts as number one criterion. Both of them are made by reliable non C64 scene parties that want to tell the "normal" people about, what is going on here. The same can be said for the CNN reference or the references to Danish newspapers (Computerworld is the businessmans source of IT news in Denmark, and Berlingske Tidende is one of the largest newspapers in Denmark). Then there is references to various game magazines that quite obviously is for a different audience and is geeks talking to geeks. So there the focus is on nostalgia. All of this adds in my book to a clear fulfillment of criterion 1. None of these articles are merely press releases, but often based on two questions: "Why do do it?" and "Why do you think that you can get 720,000 views and 2300 comments on a YouTube video?" And may I add to that, that Eels: "Novocaine for the Soul" is on 300,000 views on youtube. Not that I am comparing Eels and Press Play on Tape, and I know YouTube hits don't count in here. I simply want to make it clear that this band isn't just known by that weird computer freak back at your school. If that should influence your view on this article. --Falbaek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 19:27 — Falbaek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Remix64, frequently quoted here as a viable source, is only a source notable in the Commodore 64 remix community. I would compare this to dubstep or 8-bit specialist sites, whereby they aren't a valid source for a wider notability (I'll refrain from using the term 'cruft'). It is also, per a previous post, ran by User:LMan, whom has argued heavily on this page (thus also probably WP:COI). Only one Wikipedia user active away from this article has commented in favour of the topic's notability with a reason; The various other keep votes are from canvassing (detailed above) and members of the band. Just to bring it all together. Esteffect (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, User:LMan and I cannot make it up for calling canvassing. Basically, it cannot be canvassing since we are 5 or 6 people trying to fight the anti-agf AfD here. If you call canvassing then the comment on User Talk:SchuminWeb clearyly indicates canvassing the other way arround. There are no other band members participating in this discussion because they don't care but I've informed them about what's going on. If you want to call my reaction, as a band member, against deletion of the page WP:COI, go ahead, I'm fine with that. It would be suitable to point out where I've done anything that might conflict, otherwise drop calling COI. My basic point here is, since your're so obsessed with everything should be in accord with reality, stop making accusations that obviously aren't true. TheoEngell (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'd also like to further comment that "well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community" is not a particularly good assertion of notability, as it's not a major community that's gained huge coverage as a whole, and doesn't assert the notability of a band within it. Most Wikia projects, indeed, are founded on the basis of notability within enthusiast circles without mainstream relevance. Esteffect (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on all of this, but name one music group or artist that has a Wikipedia article that is not written by a fan of the artist. So members of U2s fan club cannot write on the U2 article because that would be WP:COI, or do he have to be the founding member of the fan club? Or just in the board of the fan club? --Falbaek (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TheoEngell is a subject of the article, which makes his contributions to this AFD in conflict of interest. Anyone whom is the subject of an article would be deemed WP:COI, but fans are not - Your account is new, however, and appears to have been created to make a point on this AFD. To complete the U2 analogy, contributions by Bono or other members of U2, and parties such as their record company with a vested interest, would be in conflict of interest. Esteffect (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not really. WP:CANVASS says It is perfectly acceptable to publicize ongoing discussions among interested editors, provided that it is done to broaden participation in the discussion, rather than influence the outcome in a desired direction. First: The initial encouragement was to get people to give their concent about writing PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in caps. As you can see there was hardly any reaction to that, poor me. Second: This discussion is about AfD of Press Play on Tape. The reaction is towards your deletion of the page, not the capitalisation issue. Your bad luck was that it happened while a whole community was looking. There are two takes: Remove or Keep and you cannot expect a lot from the people in my backyard that you have woken up to go "Yay!" on your AfD. So, once again it's utterly fantastic to see how you guys can doctor up temporal interpretations of wp guidelines and rules to suit your case, when you know that you're dealing with noobs and you should extend your help instead to get the page into a shape where it actually could stay. So, for the fourth time: Assume some good faith, stop fighting for this as were your life depending on it, and stop popping out mutual exclusive interpretations of rules to suit your mood to be amused about how much they lack a clue on how this system works. TheoEngell (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SPA! — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That would be fine if the accounts were not new, and solely created to vote on this AFD. User:Falbaek's account was only created on August 12th, 2010, for example - That's different to informing existing editors. Furthermore, you're a member of this band, which does make your contributions heavily WP:COI and WP:ILIKEIT. Those are existing guidelines, and thus are not being "doctored up". There's no conspiracy theory here, and the new accounts that are here as a vote will probably be discarded by the closing administrator. I hope that explains the system a bit better. Esteffect (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so what, since you cannot come up with any reasons why my arguments are wrong, I can only believe that I am right, and that the article in the current state lives up to the criteria to be on Wikipedia. --Falbaek (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop for a moment here. WP:COI states clearly that If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. So, it is ok in some cases to contribute yourself, if you're subject. Please make a mental note to remember about this fact. Also note that it is ok to ref own material as long as there is plenty of third-party refs, so there can hardly be any issue. Nor does any of the indication of coi examples apply for any of my edits - any that mightdo so is clearly amistake. When you call WP:COI you should (if want to be a serious contributer) specify what you think is making my entries conflict with this neutrality. I have been encouraged to do several edits by supporters of this case to quote this and that which I haven't in order to remain neutral. So, fifth time, stop making these so-easy-to-do accusations about something you only have faint hunch about and haven't really investigated. Calling a kettle black does indeed demand a black kettle at the scene of the so-called crime. TheoEngell (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) SPA — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Firstly, your tone is not particularly gracious in this comment, asking me to specify if "I want to be a serious contributor" and referring to comments as a "faint hunch". Also, adding "SPA" after your comments looks like you're somewhat mocking the "single-purpose account" guidelines. Nonetheless, the references to WP:COI are not in reference to your article contributions, but to the case that you are making in this debate, in that your desire to see the article survive this AFD is a conflict of interest, as it of course in the best interests of a band member to not see the article deleted. Therefore, when you argue vehemently for the article, it is important that the closing administrator knows your relationship to the article's content. I hope that this helps to clear things up. Esteffect (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this may sound like a few of us just banging on about silly rules we made up a few minutes ago, but when you get back to basics this is an encyclopaedia. We didn't invent it, we don't own it, we don't have any control over it. All we can do is try to work within its rules (which we didn't invent and which are policed by lots of people other than ourselves). If the subject of this article fits within wikipedia's scope, that's fine. If not, then not. I think one way, you think the other. OK, let's see. But in any case there are a squillion other websites out there with other rules for inclusion so what does wikipedia matter? I think it's just an issue of pride that your band has a wikipedia article of its own. Well, big deal.
You are totally mistaken when you claim that we're making up the rules, and I am certain that you know it. Once again: wikipedia's rules were written over a long period of time by many people, and the outcome of this debate will be decided by a third party who is knowledgeable about those rules. I have already explained how to make a complaint so please, for goodness sake, just do it and stop whingeing! andy (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't endorse the claims that you are "whinging", as it is your right to contribute to an AFD debate, as can be said for others too. However, I would be interested to know as to how a new interpretation of conflict of interest and canvassing is being shown here. Either way, the AFD has runs its course, and I think that the arguments have been fully presented. Myself and other administrators whom have contributed to this AFD cannot close it, and a neutral party will judge the arguments on their merits or lack thereof. I personally anticipate either deletion or a relisting, based on User:Thue being the only established Wikipedian to have made an argument for the article's place. Esteffect (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All rule quarrel, spa-debating and canvassing accusations aside, has anyone bothered to look at the article in the past couple of days? Even if some editors seem to think we've only been stirring trouble, we've actually worked quite hard on improving the credibility of the article. Right now this debate is about the debate itself, and very little about the article. MarcLager (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.163.80 (talk) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • One fundemental flaw with this argument is that the quality of an article's writing does not guarantee its notability. I have seen excellent articles deleted in the past, just as awful, unformatted ones have been retained, as AFD is a case of notability and encyclopedic relevance above personal interest and quality of writing. Brief mentions in documentaries, and mentions on specialist websites do not constitute notability in my mind, and the same can be said for others; Others, of course, have disagreed on that point. The issue with some sources given is that they are not independent from the musician, or particularly reputable; An example of this is the website ran by User:Lman, whom has contributed to this debate following the earlier reported canvassing for votes. Very brief mentions on documentaries and news networks are also not particularly sufficient (and are, as termed in WP:MUSIC, 'trivial'), and as has been noted previously, many of the mentions are brief as examples of Commodore 64-based music and culture. I appreciate that, as band members and fans, you are keen for the article to remain, but the "Wikipedia guys" do have arguments which have been made, and when this debate is reviewed, both sides of the argument will be considered by an independent administrator. To sum up this somewhat long-winded reply, the case for deletion stems from a lack of notability under WP:MUSIC, and the case for keeping under Criterion 1 of that (or so it would seem). The disagreement stems from whether these sources are indeed non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable, which I personally do not think is the case. Esteffect (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if I'm understanding this correctly, in your opinion, references to interviews on national TV and radio, national and international newspapers (with interviews spanning several pages, I might add) and magazines from several countries, international media, as well as analysis in academic studies is not enough to claim notability? Because if you had indeed bothered to look at the article, you'd have noticed that very few of the trivial references you're refering to are left, or make up a marginal part of the reference list. MarcLager (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources that I have seen are representing the Commodore 64 community. For example, the CNN article is in fact a single paragraph where Theo (and I don't think arguing his own band's case so heavily has helped perceptions, by the way) talks about his band in an article entitled "What can you do with a Commodore 64?". The academic article mentions the band, but also notes that the video mentioned "premiered in a pub" and "gained attention in Commodore 64 forums", so I'm not sure how that helps to show heightened notability either. For me, therefore, this isn't significant coverage focused on the band. Computer game magazines and so on is a subjective case of notability, which is why we're here at AFD. You must remember that I originally voted weak keep, and then delete, so I'm not as rigorously against this band's notability as other editors - In fact, I even stated that I've heard their music before in one comment, and thought they are quite good. This still, however, does not change my opinion that I feel that the press mentions, no matter how widely obtained, are a little trivial and brief, often as a sub-text in articles on Commodore 64 and game music. The wider popularity seems to be lacking, for me, hence why I still see this as a failure of WP:MUSIC. That's all I can really argue, but I hope you understand my viewpoint. Esteffect (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand your point of view, but I also feel you're focusing on what you think is trivial, while ignoring the substantial - like a four-page-interview in a general PC magazine, or interviews in "normal" newspapers and national TV. Yes, there are references closely linked to the band, like their web site, but surely this can't be forbidden when mixed with credible, third-party references? Even when removing those closely linked to the band, there are still dozens of third-party references left. I'm guessing we'll never agree on this, though. :) MarcLager (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also get you point, and thanks for taking the time to actually write down some of the reasons why you think the references are not notable. I share the same opinion as [[User:MarcLager] though, I would like the same argumentation on the references to "normal" newspapers and national TV. I think of Press Play On Tape as a niche band, that is very well known in their niche (Hence the many references to news mainly focussed on this niche), but the band has also appeared outside of the niche as the references to "normal" news sites states. So without the references to the computer magazines and remix64.com c64audio.com it would be impossible to write the article. This doesn't claim notability but the references to national TV and normal newspapers does. --Falbaek (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far from the trivial mentions being deleted, the majority of the sources seem to be "trivial", self-references, unreliable, unverifiable or other. Seems to be a case of WP:MASK where millions of refs are used in hope of proving notability. They must think more refs = more likely to be kept. Machine translated Danish references also do not give me hope. How about listing here say seven or so of the best sources. If that isn't enough then the band is probably non-notable. Extensive meatpuppetry and rambling is great concern. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WP:MASK another page covering something that facilitates another unproven accusation. You demand hard evidence for notability and all you can give is that it seems to be a case of wp:mask. Have you read the article? Do you know what masking is, or why the seems? TheoEngell (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:COI and at least be open to the idea that you may not be the most neutral participant in this debate. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am most certain open to that possibility but think I'm doing fine. Please read the part above starting with "Stop for a moment". If you find an entry of mine that is violating [[WP:COI] please point it out. And I really mean that. TheoEngell (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MASK clearly states that this can only be done by editors that know what is notable and what is not. Since every experienced Wikipedia editor above states that we (the people with a keep attitude) don't know what is notable, I think it is a funny rule to suddenly throw into the discussion. Then you want a list of references that is notable, both User:MarcLager and myself have all ready mentioned what we think is notable. So why didn't you join in one of those "threads"? "It is not about votes but about reaching consensus" I think I read somewhere on one of the many WP rules pages. --Falbaek (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Press_Play_on_Tape&oldid=379019844"