Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill.Skillz

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 4 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. My advice would be to expand the article modestly, drawing on the published sources that already exist in the article as references. Articles which have as their primary content lists of recordings do not tell the reader much about the band; this needs to be rectified. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill.Skillz

[edit]
Ill.Skillz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-25 02:01Z

*Delete until they're notable enough to able to secure an interview from someone other than D.Kay.TruthGal 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I misread the three interviews "Interview with D.Kay" to mean D.Kay was the interviewer as opposed to interviewee. At the request of the entry's author, OriginalJunglist, I've since looked at this entry more closely, and I'm now on the fence. It looks like their CDs aren't on a major label - am I right, are they a band whose CDs are self-released? If so, I'd still be inclined towards Delete, but until I know for sure, I'm going to withdraw my vote.TruthGal 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They do own their own label, however the majority of their music has been released on other labels.--OriginalJunglist 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of commercial releases as shown here: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ill.Skillz?anv=Ill+Skillz
  • Keep It's generally unfair to use the major label criterion to claim a dance music act are non-notable. The majority of dance music is typically released on vinyl, which major labels rarely touch with a bargepole so most dance acts tend to release on smaller independent labels. As they have been repeatedly covered in mainstream music magazines, I'd say they are notable. One Night In Hackney 18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable on the drum & bass scene. -/- Warren 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of numerous articles is sufficient. I don't care if they are on a major label or not - and neither should you. Will we hold independent films to the same standard? Will the major labels, major studios, major tabloids, etc be our sole barometer? Drew30319 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All notable "independent" films ultimately secure deals with major studios for distribution rights. Else they wouldn't get into theaters, and we'd never be able to see them.TruthGal 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's avoid the word "notable" as I assume you're using it in the Wiki-sense, which makes your argument self-fulfilling. About your point though - you're incorrect. I live in Atlanta and have the opportunity (as does anybody living in a large city) to see films that have not secured deals with "major studios." A film, song, group or individual could be encyclopedic in nature without the benefit of a major studio / major label / major fill-in-the-blank. The desire for homogenization is not universal. There are those who prefer coffee that isn't from Starbucks and pasta that isn't from The Olive Garden. There are also those that listen to music played only on the college radio stations and go to films shown at art houses in only a few cities at a time. I'm not comfortable with the notion that a select group of "majors" determines "notability." Drew30319 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with you, Drew, but I work in the film industry. It's basically a cartel - a half dozen conglomerates own and control everything. That "indie" film you saw at the art house? It was distributed by one of the major film studios (though sometimes under a subsidiary company name). For example, here are some current "indie" films and their major studio distributors: Little Children/NewLine, Notes On A Scandal/Fox, Volver/Sony, Curse of the Golden Flower (Man cheng jin dai huang jin jia)/Sony. Even Derecho De Familia - released under the IFC First Look banner... is part of a conglomorate - IFC is owned by Cablevision, a company which has a market capitalization of 8 billion dollars (not very "independent"!). Name a indie film playing at your local cinema (though not Lefont Garden, because the theater conglomorates pushed that great art house out of business), and I'll tell ya the giant evil company that's distributing it. By the way, I think this is fact is at best lamentable and at worst detestable, but it's the economics of the business. Getting a film into theaters is expensive and ultimately must be bankrolled by a giant corporation. Hopefully, digital films will change all that. Anyway, I long ago had retracted my Delete on this entry. I figured as an Ani DiFranco fan, I'd give Ill.Skillz the benefit of the doubt. (Although Ani's Righteous Babe Records actually has a distribution deal with music conglomerate Koch Entertainment, recently purchased by Entertainment One (the #1 wholeseller of CD and DVD in Canada) for 80 million dollars. Sigh.) TruthGal 08:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was looking on the web for references to this group and hit an interesting coincidence; there is a hip hop dance group called 'III Skillz' that was formed by Carlos Taguba and which has toured North America (see this PDF link). This would certainly seem to be a different group but an interesting coincidence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Is it true that the three interviews that appear pivotal to notability of the band are all associated with blogs or am I misinterpreting the interviewing organizations (these would be Play.FM, DNB Forum and DrumAndBaseArena)? If they are blogs, then would they, in fact, qualify as "non-trivial published works" if the blogs were not themselves considered notable? I'm just exploring this with some questions as I know that the 'notability' of blog postings is a hot topic of discussion and we are in a transition time where we don't want to dismiss out of hand an emerging medium. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd definitely wouldn't use DNB Forum as a measuring stick for notability. The other two seem to be well established sites, not blogs as such. It's a bit of a tricky one, as in recent years many music magazines have stopped publishing, arguably due to the growing coverage of music online. Ill Skillz have also been covered in Knowledge magazine and Mixmag, both of which are relatively mainstream magazines covering dance music. One Night In Hackney 02:56, 30 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ill.Skillz&oldid=1086069358"