Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croft No. 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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 keep especially in the context references put forth by User:TruthbringerToronto -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article prodded as failing WP:MUSIC, deprodded with claim that it now meets wp:band. I disagree. Nothing links and there is not one indication that it meets the criteria. Ghits are 887. Article also does not meet requirments of WP:RS. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article does not assert anything that would satisfy WP:BAND. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The external link demonstrates the international touring. Google hits are a poor indicator, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band is based in Scotland, and they will perform at the Tonder Festival in Tonder, Denmark on August 24. As well, their site indicates that they have performed internationally in the past. They have released two albums, both of which are available through Amazon in the United Kingdom. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would agree that they come close to meeting at least one criteria, which would be this one: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.. Yet it still fails, due to it not being reported in notable and verifiable sources. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is a verifiable source. We can verify any of the information there regarding their appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is not a verifiable source, as WP:RS specifically says. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. According to WP:RS, "[m]aterial from self-published sources...may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: ...relevant to the person's notability..."
- Continuing, "it should also...be subject to verification by other sources."
- So, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, no. Unless you can verify it from elsewhere, at which point the self-promoting website becomes moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes. The website is a-okay according to WP:RS, and we can verify the information in question elsewhere individually - the question of their nobility, which is answered by the website ad thus okay per WP:RS - by, for instance, checking the actual schedules of the festivals, and, if possible, finding reviews. There's no question those exist, so the website is subject to outside verification in this case, and the website is a-okay per WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, no. Unless you can verify it from elsewhere, at which point the self-promoting website becomes moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely wrong. Remember the lessons of Aladin (AfD discussion), whose web site contains articles from newspapers that, according to the actual archives of those magazines, never existed and Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), whose web site was a complete fiction (constructed by a reliable source, no less). Uncle G 11:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still holding my ground on this one. Nothing in the article is sourced, and the links can provide a form a self published source (which it still does not meet), but thats all. Its still not notable. SynergeticMaggot 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ground would have been better laid if you had use the phrase "reliable source". It is subjects that are notable, not sources. It is articles that are verifiable, not sources. The relevant properties of sources are their provenance and depth, i.e. who created and published them and whether they are apposite, reliable, and non-trivial. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making my point, actually. I've quoted the relevant text at WP:RS regarding this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I'm refuting your point. Your argument is that the web site is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons given. Subjects' own web sites are simply not reliable sources. TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. Instead of making a fallacious argument, please do what xe is doing and look for similar sources independent of the subject to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree on this one. I'm just reading what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy more seriously than simply reading a web site and uncritically beliving what it says. Uncle G 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I again, take it very seriously. My disagreements with your interpretations as to how to handle this do not mean I take it any more or less seriously than you do, and I strongly object to your continued categorization of my beliefs in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply reading a web site and believing uncritically what it says isn't a serious application of our verifiability policy, your objections notwithstanding. Anyone with a modicum of experience with the World Wide Web should know that there is no guarantee that what is published on a vanity web site is true. I pointed to two valuable lessons above. Please learn from them. Uncle G 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My disagreement with you is not an example of "believing uncritically" or a lack of an ability to learn from other situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to learn has not come up in this discussion, and is a straw man. Your disagreement (which is with more than one editor, note) is that "The website is a-okay" and that is an example of believing uncritically what it says. As I said before, TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. But you aren't following xyr example. Please follow xyr example, please take our verifiability policy more seriously than simply taking bands' web sites at their face values, and please learn why it is a bad idea to do so from the valuable lessons mentioned above (which are far from being the only such occasions). Uncle G 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your advice, but there's really no need for it. Don't doubt my seriousness about these policies, I know full well what's up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to learn has not come up in this discussion, and is a straw man. Your disagreement (which is with more than one editor, note) is that "The website is a-okay" and that is an example of believing uncritically what it says. As I said before, TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. But you aren't following xyr example. Please follow xyr example, please take our verifiability policy more seriously than simply taking bands' web sites at their face values, and please learn why it is a bad idea to do so from the valuable lessons mentioned above (which are far from being the only such occasions). Uncle G 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My disagreement with you is not an example of "believing uncritically" or a lack of an ability to learn from other situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply reading a web site and believing uncritically what it says isn't a serious application of our verifiability policy, your objections notwithstanding. Anyone with a modicum of experience with the World Wide Web should know that there is no guarantee that what is published on a vanity web site is true. I pointed to two valuable lessons above. Please learn from them. Uncle G 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I again, take it very seriously. My disagreements with your interpretations as to how to handle this do not mean I take it any more or less seriously than you do, and I strongly object to your continued categorization of my beliefs in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy more seriously than simply reading a web site and uncritically beliving what it says. Uncle G 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree on this one. I'm just reading what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I'm refuting your point. Your argument is that the web site is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons given. Subjects' own web sites are simply not reliable sources. TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. Instead of making a fallacious argument, please do what xe is doing and look for similar sources independent of the subject to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still holding my ground on this one. Nothing in the article is sourced, and the links can provide a form a self published source (which it still does not meet), but thats all. Its still not notable. SynergeticMaggot 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is not a verifiable source, as WP:RS specifically says. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website is a verifiable source. We can verify any of the information there regarding their appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would agree that they come close to meeting at least one criteria, which would be this one: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.. Yet it still fails, due to it not being reported in notable and verifiable sources. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TRuthbringer(Talk | contribs) . Good work man. Could u expand the article. --Ageo020 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Evidence that the band will perform at the Tønder Festival can be found at the site of the Festival itself: http://www.tf.dk/pages/band.php?set_menu=94&id=584 TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Croft = Cruft. Anomo 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Truthbring Toronto. Silensor 08:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles; also, I suggest that for a band to tour somewhere, it's making several stops around a country. This band's claimed schedule shows one show here, then back in Scottland, another show there, and then back in Scotland. Considering the venues also appear to be music festivals, it appears they have an enterprising agent, rather than international demand. Along these lines, Google only shows to me 218 distinct hits for "croft no. 5"+band; I agree Google is not the final arbiter of notability, but at this level I consider it symptomatic. Also no evidence of charted hits. Tychocat 14:16, 22 August 2006 (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.