Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel (2nd nomination)

Doctor Steel

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel
• Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel (2nd nomination)

Doctor Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined to speedy delete this because there is substantial debate on the talk page, and what appears to be a whole lot of references. Therefore it seems a full-on debate is a better idea than speedy deletion. I would encourage users to look at the talk page for some explanation of the history of this before commenting. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Response from main contributors

I was one of the main writers of the article. We originlly started writing this article over the course of one long, strenuous day (Jonnybgoode44 was not one of the original authors, but the most constant contributor). With a full class load for freshman first semester here at FIU, I have not been able to keep up with making fixes and changes to the article. I may be a fan of doctor steel but this page was written from a purely objective point of view. We wanted to make the article as nuetral as possible, and as the two main authors (the other two who worked on it did citations and editing) are not experienced wiki writers, as I have stated before. This page was in no way intended to be an orphaned page, as it is not, but it was intended to evolve with input from admins, moderators, and general wiki userbase. This is in no way a page for promotion, this page is meant to be purely informational. I made this article simply so when someone needs information on Dr. Steel, it's all available in one concise, gathered place, the same reason why articles are made for anything. I'd rather see my hardwork changed and edited than out-right deleted. If it is decided it will be deleted, I'd rather remove the page myself and migrate it to a different website that will be more accepting of it than have it just deleted.

So. For those who think tl;dr, Don't delete, help fix. Constructive criticism, teamwork, and open source exchange of ideas is a better idea than deletion based on old bias and opaque complaints. Viraneth (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in with my initial two cents: I was not part of the initial project, but was brought on board partly because I am by trade a professional website developer. I was interested in this subject (i.e., why doesn't Doctor Steel have a wiki entry?) quite a while before I became involved myself, because people outside of his fan base notice this stuff as well. I have been attempting as much as humanly possible to continue to write and edit from that POV and remain as objective as possible. I hope that shows in my edits (which I'm sure to some of the fan base seem rather draconian). For me, it's not about promotion, it's about imparting information, and about fairness. To the musician, and to the genre in general.

If one wishes to discuss the growning steampunk subculture, and more precisely the musical genre that it is spawning, one must include Dr. Steel, he is among steampunkers considered an essential steampunk musician. To discuss the musical aspect of the genre and not include Dr. Steel in that discussion is to do a great disservice to the genre - it's like discussing major Disney characters and omitting any mention of Donald Duck.

I hope the admins here can discuss this objectively and reach a fair decision. I have been encouraged and have been very thankful for the positive and constructive input from several of the moderators on here so far, and have made quite a lot of sweeping changes to the originally-posted article (reducing it in size by over half) in response to their objective suggestions. I hope that that cooperation will continue. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Delete, fails WP:BAND. There's lots of (trivial) print media coverage, lots of (self-released) recordings, even a (brief) TV appearance or two, but this is clearly a guy still in the minors, trying to use wikipedia and other promotion tools to break into the majors. Ronabop (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Most of the sources are trivial or not reliable, but the Wired and Re:Gen articles look like a pretty good start to me. The case for inclusion would be helped greatly by some better references. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not a fan, in fact never heard of this artist before the AfD, but I have to think that the only reason this is at AfD is the prior editing and promotional issues, and not notability issues. The Wired article doesn't do it for me because the only mention of Steel is in the reader comments, but there are a whole lot of other independent sources that I will presume are reliable until shown otherwise. Any other musician with this many articles and interviews would be kept in a second, so what is it that makes this artist different? Perhaps it's the lack of mainstream sources (although The Tonight Show is arguably as mainstream as it gets), but steampunk is not a genre that's going to get coverage on Entertainment Tonight no matter how many other people are noticing an artist (and the steampunkers I know pride themselves on being outside of the mainstream).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't help wondering which Wired article you were reading; the one linked mentions Dr. Steel in the very first paragraph. Just curious. ;) (Note: This controversy was also mentioned on io9 - I noticed a reference link at the bottom of the article as I was rechecking this.)
"...but steampunk is not a genre that's going to get coverage on Entertainment Tonight no matter how many other people are noticing an artist..." Well said. And in the words of one steampunker source (which I didn't include because the admins would have probably deemed it irrelevant anyway, as it was a blog), "Abney Park, Dr. Steel, and Vernian Process are three of the most prominent musical groups pioneering a new genre." (http://blog.wingsofsteam.net/?p=62) Which I would say would be the consensus of most of the steampunk community. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I missed the link in the article, and did a gsearch to find the article. All I found was this, which only mentions Doctor Steel in the comments. The one in the article is definitely a good source, so I've struck that part of my comment.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:BAND at least by being the main subject of the article in Wired, having an interview on Suicide Girls and by appearing on the Tonight Show. -Kieran (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

egads, I forgot to add the Suicide Girls interview. (Actually, didn't think anyone would think it important, but then I'm just an old fart, what do I know. Off to add it.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the notability of Suicide Girls could be debated, but I think they've become a substantial media entity in their own right.

Oh, and further to my above comment, the article also passes WP:BAND under section 3: "Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."; "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." - as mentioned by the authors, Dr. Steel is one of the iconic examples of Steampunk music, and is frequently mentioned in media about the subculture. -Kieran (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've added a ref to an interview in Steampunk Magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. :) I don't see the ref though... could you post it here? Nevermind, found it! Added, thx. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I just added a link to an MTV News video where Dr. Steel is mentioned first among steampunk bands they spotlight.
(btw if anyone cares to give me some aid cleaning up the format of any of the reference links I might have done wrong, I would appreciate the help; I did the best I could, but I'm not too savvy on your format, even after reading WP:REF it's a tad confusing. Thanks.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing the right thing with the ref tags and the cite web template. One thing you could try is using cite news for magazine articles, interviews, etc. -Kieran (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest filling in the "work" field in the template with the name of the magazine, website, etc. It would have been easier for me to find the right Wired ref if that field had been filed in. Still, you're doing really well on the refs. The main thing is having them. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think any of this coverage is new since the dleetion was last endorsed a few months ago. Wikipedia is not for viral marketing, this article lacks substantial independent sources and has already been deleted multiple times at multiple locations and deletion endorsed multiple times. It reads as an advertisement, which is hardly a surprise since "Operation Wikipedia" is all about promoting the act, not about Wikipedia at all other than as a vehicle for promotion. This title was salted so the creation itself was out of process, especially given the number of previous deletions and endorsements. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous deletion in the logs is dated March of 2008? I'm counting at least nine citations since then. And I'm not really sure what you'd consider 'substantial', if appearing on MTV News and in Wired magazine aren't 'substantial'. As Fabrictramp noted, "Any other musician with this many articles and interviews would be kept in a second."
As I mentioned elsewhere, the ill-advised "Operation Wikipedia" was shut down, forcefully, well over a year ago. As your own logs bear out: no article has been posted/deleted here for almost a year and a half. This article is a completely fresh work, completely different from previous articles. It was meant to be an objective piece on the band, not a "propaganda" piece about the fictional persona. And input from several admins on improving and making it more objective (at our request!) have been graciously accepted and implemented.
Regarding the page being salted: as Tim Song correctly noted in the Dr. Steel (album) AfD thread, this page was originally posted as "Doctor Steel (band)", as it was meant to be about the band. It was moved here by an admin, which overwrote the lock. This was not at our request, and I regret how it looked.

Also, in the past year and a half since the last delete Dr. Steel's fan club has grown from around 10,000 to currently over 24,000 members. (And those are just the fans that joined the club.) Needing Wikipedia's help for promotion isn't the issue - Dr. Steel obviously does just fine with that on his own. This is about having a fair article about an artist who is universally recognized in the steampunk subculture as one of the iconic examples of the genre (called an icon by Dieselpunks.org). Which I believe is one of your criterion (WP:BAND#Others:1,5). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Jonnybgoode44's comments, with the exception of the previous AfD (which deleted the article for fair use issues in February 2007), every one of the prior deletions was a speedy. I'm not sure we can draw too much of a conclusion when only one or two editors are involved in the deletion. In fact, I'd say the last deletion in 2008 was a bad one because the article at that time did not fall under A7, the criteria used. (Not intending this as a personal slam JzG, even though you were the admin who deleted it, but with the number of interviews and references in that version, I can't see any way it was an A7 candidate.) There are now a number of sources in the article that were not in the 2008 version, and even more that were not in the only version deleted at AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I said in my nomination, this was brought here as a procedural matter, as the speedy deletion nom had resulted in the talk page becoming a de facto AFD debate anyway. This article still has some problems with it's tone, which is not quite what is expected from an encyclopedia article (do we really need an entire section on the websites when they are linked in the "external links" section anyway?) but that is not a reason for deletion. Neither are the previous deleted versions, which are not substantially identical to this one. There are still some issues, but I am convinced that adequate notability has been established by coverage in multiple reliable sources plus an appearance on "The Tonight Show." You don't get to play there if you're nobody. Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Tonight Show appearance plus enough appropriate references indicate notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral at this point; my gut feeling is still that this is not notable and there's still a subtle attempt at promotion. Some of the references that people are using as notable, such as the Tonight Show appearance and the Suicide Girls interview, have been discussed and rejected as being usable in the past; apparently consensus has changed on those, despite them not changing at all. A lot of the references are blogs or bloggy. There are a few reasonable refs, but overall I still personally don't see enough notability for this to exist. Pretty well pointless to say 'delete' at this point because we seem to be allowing more marginal material these days, I just wanted to note that the refs don't, to me, seem to be as good as they've been billed. Whatever. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link the past consensus? The only past discussion I can find is the previous AfD, where the decision to delete appears to have gone against the consensus of keep.

In fact, the more I learn about how admins have handled this article over the past two years, the more uneasy I feel. It seems to have been a long string of over-zealous applications of G1, G12 and A7 in the speedy criteria (going largely against the original AfD discussion), followed by over a year of salting.

Anyway, I agree about the tone feeling like promotion, (though I've done a bit of editing to try to rectify that) and am aware of "Operation Wikipedia". However, it seems like the article passes notability (for the numerous reasons I mention above), so should at the very least exist. I think it needs to be watched carefully, and blatant promotional edits removed aggressively, but I do not believe that deletion is the correct way of going about this. -Kieran (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of the sources that I can find is at this DRV. Admins can look at this version of User talk:JzG for a rather good explanation of the overall problem here, along with some other links to previous DRVs. I personally contend that the Leno piece is hardly notable; it's quite short, and his name, if I recall correctly, isn't even mentioned, It's not an interview. It's someone walking into a room with the band playing, asking wtf is going on, and then walking out. If that's notability, we've got a buttload of people who have been interviewed on the street for Today or something that need articles. The Suicide Girls is a transcript of an article with Doctor Steel in-character, as others appear to be; were these actually written up in publications that have editorial oversight, I'd be more comfortable with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're somewhat missing the point. Dr. Steel does not go out hustling for interviews. These are all people who have been interested in interviewing him, that have come to him to hear what he has to say. Including some rather significant Indy sources such as ReGen. And of course Dr. Steel doesn't go out of character for his interviews. He never goes out of character. That would break the illusion; that would ruin the magic. And that's what Dr. Steel is. He's a magician. He's creating an illusion. An illusion his fans enjoy and want to keep; an illusion he has no intention of breaking. It would be like granting Criss Angel an interview on the condition that he reveal how he does his tricks. His fans don't want to see the man behind the curtain, and neither do those who interview him. Besides, I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you that the myth is far more interesting than the man.
Doctor Steel is obviously not making any blips in the mainstream press. That point not even being argued. He is decidedly outside mass media traditions: He will likely never sign with a major label; he has said that he despises the label system, and prefers to work in the digital realm. "I am happy to see my music seep into the digital shopping bags of the MP3 generation." However, he IS very much a primary, noteworthy example of the genre of steampunk music. That point really cannot be argued. MTV called him a "great example" of the steampunk musical genre. Another steampunk blogger called him one of the "three... most prominent musical groups pioneering a new genre." Yet another called him an icon of the genre. The point is, here is a subculture - steampunk - which is rapidly growing. And here is a band that is often referred to among steampunkers - of which I am one - as one of the "big three" steampunk bands, alongside Abney Park and Vernian Process. He is significantly influential in the style the steampunk musical genre is taking, and is frequently covered in genre publications (Steampunk Magazine, Coilhouse Magazine, etc.) as well as websites, blogs, et. al., devoted to the sub-culture. If that's not notable, then I have absolutely no idea what "notable" means here. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I had no idea who Doctor Steel was until I randomly tripped over the deletion debate through a long series of jumps from the Simon Wessely article, of all things. But having a quick scan through the article, and looking at the reasons cited above, it seems to me that notability requirements have been satisfied and there appears to be some recent work by a couple of editors to bring this article in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The article could definitely use some more work (which I may help with if I have time), but I don't see deletion as the way to go. I agree with Kieran's above statement that in light of "Operation Wikipedia", this article needs to be watched—very intently—but I don't think it deserves deletion at this time. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep (didn't realize recommendations were limited to admins only. That's the problem with using cut and paste!) - I stumbled upon Doctor Steel via YouTube a couple of months ago, and, wanting to know more about him from an objective source, I turned to Wikipedia, where I found nothing. Dismayed, I was forced to go to his own websites, where the information was, bluntly, not objective. I read the TSU "Operation Wikipedia" entries, with links to discussions here, and I find this attempt to be significantly more modest. It is the nature of webophiles to check Wikipedia for background info regarding things they see/hear about. To not have a page related to this topic is a disservice to the community. Make changes as needed, but give the world something they can turn to--if nothing else to let them know that this is a band and that they don't need to worry about someone actually taking over the world. —SithToby 23:52, 6 September 2009 (MST)