Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Was a Cub Scout

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Seems like we don't have a firm consensus for or against the sources establishing GNG notability. The uncontested NBAND argument carries it for the keep side. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Cub Scout

edit
I Was a Cub Scout (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)

Non-notable "band" that hasn't charted (or at least not supported by an sources I can find) and has no coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG and pretty much every other standard. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michig could you please provide them? I'd be glad to withdraw my nomination with adequate sourcing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NME: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
The Guardian: [6], [7]
Allmusic: [8], [9]
The List: [10]
rockfeedback.com: [11], [12]
Gigwise.com: [13], [14], [15], [16]
BBC: [17], [18], [19]
Clash: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
PopMatters: [25]
DIY: [26]
Bopurnemouth Echo: [27]
The Skinny: [28]
Drowned in Sound: [29]
No doubt there are more out there if one digs deeper. --Michig (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a source for the chart placing (the OCC only put top 100 on their website): [30]. --Michig (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the sources. I'll break it down:
  • NME: #2 is a listing/run of the mill, same with 3, 4 is a tour announcement, 5 is an interview.
  • Guardian: Neither are what I would consider significant coverage from an independent reliable source.
  • Allmusic: neither are coverage
  • The list: a review from a website with no editorial oversight, so not exactly coverage. Basically equivalent of a blog.
  • Gigwise: not even remotely considered an RS - it's literally rehashing of "press releases" and the band asking fans for things.
  • BBC: First two are interviews, last one is a press release.
  • Clash: Every single one is an announcement
The rest follow this pattern with maybe one exception of a review, none of which meet our notability standards.
All of these things could be used to support an article if the article were based on actual coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what is lacking here.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I modified my !vote above. North America1000 20:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Chrissy, I think your analysis of the sources above is nonsense. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michig What about it is nonsense? 90% of what was listed in those sources are press releases, interviews and announcements. None of which are coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NME: 4 news items and an album review (it even helpfully states 'Album Reviews' at the top), The Guardian coverage is both significant and in a reliable source, both Allmusic sources are coverage, The List is not a 'blog', its the website associated with a print magazine, Gigwise.com is a reliable source - there are two reviews listed that are certainly not rehashes of press releases, the third BBC source is a review (it even has 'Review' in the title), not a 'press release'. Some are news items based on information passed to them - such is the nature of news. The fact that magazines like the NME and Clash see fit to include these as news items differentiates the band from most. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And we delete many other things for more. In particular Gigwise is not RS and it is most certainly not WP:COVERAGE it's literally directly from the band/WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Just because there are reviews doesn't make them significant and doesn't make the source reliable. BBC introducing covers thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of bands that are definitely not notable. It's like having an MTV profile...anyone can do it. NME in particular is useless for determining notability because it's basic information, the equivalent of a press release without the words "press release." Please see WP:COVERAGE. This fails every standard we have and simply having reviews of an album from some random niche websites with no editorial oversight is meaningless. I'd say in this entire list only 2 items might be useful as independently reliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding AllMusic, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, where it states, "Biography/reviews are fine, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose. Don't use review score when review is not present, or mention the "Album Pick" designation." North America1000 20:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. I'm not wasting any more time trying to change your mind. --Michig (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2017 (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/I_Was_a_Cub_Scout&oldid=1137924557"