Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream

Traveler's Dream

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

This group and these artists fail notability. The only prong of WP:MUSIC they possibly meet is prong 1 (and I see no other basis for meeting general notability). Their self-released CDs have been reviewed a couple of times. One member was also the subject of a blurb in the college magazine (which does not qualify for prong 1) of the school at which she works as an administrative assistant. The only profile of the group that is listed in the article (or that I could find searching) is in a local magazine not available online and only available at several locations in and around Lafayette, Indiana. While they have played some apparently large fairs and historical music festivals, their past performance listing on their website does not indicate any sort of a tour (let alone a tour that was covered by RSs). I've cleaned up some of the cites and language on the page, but in doing so I have not been convinced they are notable for wikipedia purposes. They might be a great group, but I don't see the notability to justify an article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Novaseminary (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are very notable. I'm new at Wikipedia lingo, but even the material already in the article establishes at ;least two of the prongs, with only one being needed. I only recently discovered this article, and see my notes regarding additional material. Also it appears that the person who mentioned possible deletion removed substantial notability related material from the article. I tried looking at their user page...it is hard to look at due to them immediately erasing everything (substantial material) from their user page and discussion page. Further, as I noted, there are other substantial elements to them and this article (particularly historical, academic) that give it excellent and useful content.DougT1235 (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked further and the same person who put this here in this deletion discussion just made a huge round of changes and also deleted important notability-related references. Something is not right here. DougT1235 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doug, you can click on the "history" link next to the article's name above to see all of the edits I--and every other editor--have made to the article; nothing is being hidden. In the interest of full disclosure, here is a link to the last version before I made my first edit to the article two weeks ago (edits which, I would note, even the article's creator appreciated as mentioned on the talk page). And here is the composite diff of all of my last round of edits (before you jumped in). You will note that some of the cites that appear to be removed were cites that were improperly added to the references section by hand (without the ref tag) and which I replaced with proper ref tagged notes. One should always assume good faith. Other than removing playlists that do not support the assertion made (and as explained, one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all), I mostly cleaned up existing references using the cite template. I also added URLs, authors, and other info to the existing cites. I did this so editors who want to participate in this AfD won’t have to try to figure out what has been cited and in the hopes that I would be able to confirm notability.

But to the point of whether they are notable for Wikipedia purposes or not, which two prongs of WP:MUSIC do you think the group meets? You did make some mention of notability with comments on the talk page. In a difficult to follow way because of how you interspersed your thoughts throughout the talk page, you mentioned something about somebody named "Reid Lewis" and an historic canoe trip with this comment. That does not appear to be the Michael Lewis the article describes. But if it is, please put in a citation. If he is notable, that would go a long way to making the group notable. And, I wonder if you have the right person in the Newsweek article from 1976 that with this edit you just added as a source regarding Denise Wilson’s participation in a group called Bon Jolais. According to the Wikipedia article we are discussing, she toured with the group Bon Jolais from 1987 onward. It would be odd if she were written about in 1976, eleven years before she toured with them. Perhaps an article title and author would help clear things up. Novaseminary (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who put in the content about the Midnight Special broadcasts and so I do not know the specifics. But in a note about both "good faith" and an example of what you have been doing to this article, you essentially said you only checked (the three months of) 2010, and because you didn't see them there you deleted the notability-related reference a second time. All in the middle of deletion discussion that you started! How can you come to that conclusion about the other years? While one could argue that the reference needs to be more specific, imperfection is not grounds for deletion of a reference, doubly so (both times) without prior discussion. And then, based on you not finding it in the 5% of that reference that you checked, you make the statement above that "one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all" which, to put it very kindly, is putting an unsupported statement into this discussion.

The cited 3 pages in Newsweek magazine were photos of Denise Wilson performing. The first one was on the "table of contents" page of the magazine rather than in the article. The is certainly relevant cite to establishing the beginning of her performances in the USA, although the wording might need to be changed to reflect that rather than Bon Jolais.

In my discussion section notes on the LaSalle Expedition re-creation. I didn't write or imply anything about Reid Lewis being Michael Lewis. What I wrote about was Denise Wilson participating in the European and Egypt tour associated with that expedition / re-creation. DougT1235 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Folks, this isn't a general discussion board. So I will try to keep this to a minimum. We should focus on what WP guidelines this article could be notable under. Doug, please do put in a specific link to whatever playlists this group has appeared on. The link I removed itself was labeled as the 2010 playlists with links to each playlist from this year (each of which I clicked on and checked) and additional links to similar pages of links to playlists from other years (therefore indirectly pointing to over ten years of individual playlists on individual pages). It would be like putting a link to time.com as a reference to somebody having appeared in Time magazine. As for the Newsweek magazine, as I requested before, what was the title of the article? Was it about her or just a photo that included her (in high school or maybe junior high school, I presume). Please do correct the citation to reflect what it is actually supporting or correct or add text that the citation does support. That is perfectly appropriate (and good!) during an AfD. I realize you are both new, and that is just fine, so for more on how to comment on AfDs like this, please see WP:AFDEQ and the section below that one. Novaseminary (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all" I looked back just 1 1/2 months into 2009 in that reference and they were mentioned (broadcast) 4 times in that nationally syndicated radio program. I added exact links to the exact pages. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and I've now fixed and fleshed out those the references. The playlists you added, though, are not to "national" XM radio version of the show, only to the local version. All these are is proof that 4 times this group's music has played on local radio stations. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling th largest market classical and folk station in Chicago (with listening area in at least 3 states) and Wisconsin Public Radio (which broadcasts simultaneously on WPR stations across the state "local" is spin at best. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original creator and most frequent editor of this article. On March 111th I made my FIRST edit on a different article (Carrie Newcomer), which reverted a large deletion by Novaseminary and I made the following comment. "Undid prior revision (which) deleted 4 external links with no specific reason cited, only a vague reference to a policy. Policies are to improve articles, not to detract from them". Within a few days Novoaseminary placed on-article top of article issue tags on every (or nearly every) article that I recently edited. And on this article they placed 5 top-of-main article issue templates, including a nomination for deletion, plus a 6th on the image used, plus about 20 "reference needed" tags within the article itself. And, just before and after nominating it for deletion they removed large amounts of notability related material. The "Midnight Special" broadcast note by DougT is typical of this. Essentially large deletions of notabiliity related material and references for minor or not established reasons, with no prior discussion. While even without this the article indicates notability, but trying to recover it from this barrage, plus make additions plus dealing with the deletion nomination is a huge burden for a volunteer to handle quickly in available free time. It is much easier to destroy than to build. Due to all of this it will take a few weeks to get the article with material added and in good shape for a discussion such as this. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While not terribly relevant, I would note that I deleted a handful of ELs that violated various specific parts of WP:ELNO from Carrie Newcomer with an edit history noting why. North8000 reverted, as he mentioned. I then re-removed each of the offending links as a separate edit with a specific pointer to the guideline prong each violated. It struck me that the editor was unfamiliar with Wikipedia, yet bold (which is, of course, generally good), so I followed his edit history and saw the scores of edits to this article and took a look. The article, as it existed then was in rough shape. As one can see, the references were added by superscripting numbers to point to hand numbered references. The page also read like an advertisement for the group and I suspected a COI. In fact, the group's home page has a prominent link back to this article ("Learn more at Wikipedia!"). So I reworked the text, added fact tags (only after it became clear that the primary editor did not seem to understand the problems). On the talk page I asked for the primary editor (or anybody) to explain why the group meets WP:MUSIC. I was not convinced, so I made the nomination here.

Back to the reasons for deletion, it doesn't matter which version of the page one looks at, it is only the group's inherent notability that matters. I suggest that the group does not even possibly meet any prong of WP:MUSIC other than prong #1. They have not been on a covered, national tour, their CDs are self-released, etc. When looking at the references provided, I saw that one was from a college magazine (which are explicitly mentioned in prong #1 as not fulfilling it) and another seemed to be a local free magazine that did not have a link. The rest were reviews, or even less relevant, playlists from local historical music programs. Taken together, I think these do not come even close (assuming the articles say what they are purported to say since they are not widely available to verify) to meeting prong #1 (or any of general notability criteria). The Newsweek article that this other new editor happened to have lying around from 1976 is a possibility for a RS, but we don't know even the title of the article is or what it dealt with. The individual it supposedly mentions, Denise Wilson of this group, did not graduate from college until 1981 (per the article, which does not cite anything for that proposition, so it may not be true). It is not clear what this potential source refers to or why she is in it. So, even if it is a valid RS dealing with the right person, we don't know if its coverage was non-trivial to meet prong 1 (and it is still only one, not multiple, as required by prong #1, but I admit it would go a long way toward prong #1 if Newsweek writes about somebody).

Novaseminary (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this article is well-matched to the "academics" AfD forum. (I guess the connection is that the wife has a PhD, but she evidently works as an administrative assistant, according to one of the Purdue alumni newsletters.) What I do see is that the sources here are really poor. Article is filled with "fact" tags and most of the references seem to be nothing more than websites. A few point to what seem to be pretty obscure publications, e.g. "Muzzle Blasts", although I admit that this may reflect my own biases (glad to be corrected). The scouting magazine ref is probably reliable, but when you check the text, it's only a trivial mention, "...and attending a campfire featuring folk-music duo Traveler’s Dream and professional storyteller Bob Valentine" – hardly substantive coverage. I think with the fascinating breaching experiment pointed out to us recently by BrownHairedGirl in another AfD, there's absolutely no justification for keeping BLPs without WP:RS. This article seems to have a really long way to go. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This article seems to be double posted in both musical groups and academic. I did not put i there. I'm assuming that you are responding under academic. I think that their notability is 2/3 as a musical group and 1/3 as historical/teaching/academic. This posting would make it appear to be evaluating / standing alone as if it were just academic, which is certainly not the case. Notability should be evaluated as a musical group but with some extra consideration for the academic/ teaching/ historical component. Any support regarding that aspect would be appreciated. Otherwise Britney Spears and Lady Ga Ga could beat them hands down. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, but I can tell you that there's no provision in WP for "splitting" notability as you want to do, e.g. 2/3 music and 1/3 academic. Rather, they must exclusively pass at least (any) one of the standard notability tests, e.g. WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, etc. (There are lots of them.) A quick glance confirms that they do not pass WP:PROF (hence my comment above). My main point is that the references here are really thin and this could also kill the article, as it discusses living individuals. For example, this article was deleted just yesterday for precisely this reason. It would probably be good to review WP:BLP for anyone who's not already familiar with it. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Clear failure of WP:Prof, looks too thin for WP:Music ~~but I am open to correction~~. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - DougT1235 has been trying to improve the article and there is now a source listed as the Niles (Michigan) Gazette. (How he has Newsweek articles from 1976 and local Michigan newspapers from 1991 around is anyone's guess.) Unfortunately, all I can find about the Niles Gazette publication is this Library of Congress listing. So even if it is real in more recent history, it would appear to be a minor publication at best. And the Newsweek article still strikes me as doubtful. I wonder if the article isn't photos of the bicentennial in which Ms. Wilson happens to appear as a member of a local fife band, rather than an article about her or her old fife band. All in all, even with the new sources, I still think the group and its member fail WP:MUSIC #1. Novaseminary (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Statements Regarding Removal of the Tag/Template

The WP instructions say that the way to object to the proposed deletion is to remove the proposed deletion notice, (I object to the proposed removal) But the notice placed on this article says "do not delete". Does anybody know which it is? North8000 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD and WP:AFD are two different animals. This article is now being debated in Afd and the tag must stay on the article. In Prod, there is no debate and the article is deleted after the waiting period if there are no objections raised (like deleting the tag). In practical terms, this means that an admin will examine the debate once it's concluded and either retain or delete this article on that basis. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and clarification! North8000 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have my main comments and response in a couple of days

I was the originator or the article and am it's more frequent editor. I think that it is clear that they at least triply fulfill the requirements for notability. For the reasons above, it will take me 2-3 days to provide a thorough answer. Since today is only the third day of it's AFD nomination, I assume that I will have provided that sufficiently early. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would concentrate on establishing that the newsweek source gives substantive coverage of these folks (not just a brief mention, or appearing accidentally in a picture), otherwise I'd say there's not much of a case for notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm the one that put that in. And reiterating and clarifying what I said above, these are three pages in the bi-centennial issues showing Wilson performing. Theses are her specificialy, not her in a group or crowd. And no, it is not a three page article about her specifically in the bi-centennial edition of Newsweek. DougT1235 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt all of the turmoil and blatant attacks that have been imbued on Traveler's Dream is something more than nothing of a parasitic direct attack. I am a HUGE fan of Traveler's Dream and this article I have read about them is ALL FACTUAL. Their are no misleadings or corners cut about them, infact I know that this article is FACTUAL WITHOUT A DOUBT. They are a very inspiring music group as well as a book of knowledge on how the voyageurs lived and traveled. I would like it if we all got to vote instead of just having some angry person trying to be powerful and get their own way. Why not and vote and I know for sure that Wikipedia will KEEP this page. God bless all who speak the truth

Main Presentation on Established Traveler's Dream Notability by North8000

(Please put any comments after, i.e. not have them split up my presentation)

I was the originator of this article, and am one of its more frequent editors. This article has been through a lot within the last two weeks. I won’t repeat my previous concerns regarding the sequence that culminated in the AFD nomination, sufficed to say that I don’t believe that weight should be given to the mere fact that it was nominated. It IS important to understand the recent sequent of events for this article. Within a span of a few days, this sleepy little ½ year old article, was hit with (all from the same person) five top level issue tags, about 20 “citation needed” tags on an article that was already reasonably well referenced, and had its image tagged for deletion in 7 days for me not having proven the obtained and clearly stated permission. Also, immediately after nominating it for deletion, the same person who nominated it deleted large amounts of notability related material for secondary reasons (e.g. for being referenced from the lead, links not being deep enough etc.). Subsequently I resolved the secondary issues to get most of the deleted notability related material and references restored, and much new material and many new references have been added. The comments already in the AFD page were made prior to this restoration and expansion.

The Wikipedia notability standards for bands essentially require that one of the listed criteria be met, with allowance exception in either direction. I submit that, based on material and reference in the article, that Traveler’s Dream meets seven (7) thus based on those alone, meets the notability requirements seven (7) times over. Moreover, they have substantial historical, academic notability outside of music, which, their notability on all of the other 7 categories disappeared, such other considerations are in the intent of the header wording of the policy.

Most importantly, PLEASE read the article. It is not long! And please peruse the references. Statements in here are from (not repetitions) the article and references.

Criteria within the First Group of 12

This first section refers to and is numbered by the 12 points in the top section in the policy.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #1 The article alone cites seven (7) publishings by 6 different magazine s and one municipal newspaper that meet the criteria for item #1. One is the leading folk music publication of England, two are the leading the leading folk music publications of the USA, one is one of the two leading national (USA) historical re-enactment publications, one (albeit only a photo, caption and brief mention) is of the national adult leader magazine of the Boy Scouts of America, one is a prominent specialty magazine of Lafayette, IN, and the other was an in-depth article by a municipal newspaper.

These 7 do NOT include the cited Newsweek Magazine with pictures on three pages specifically of Denise Wilson performing (excluded from #1 because it was prior to Traveler’s Dream). And they do NOT include the article in the Purdue Krannert School of Business Magazine, excluded per the item 1 criteria because it is a university magazine.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #6 Without repeating the entire sections on Wilson and Lewis, they show that Both Wilson and Lewis are independently notable from prior work.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #7 In the area of historical folk music they not only fulfill the “prominent representative” require for their city as required,, but do so for the entire central USA. In addition to what is cited in the articles of the above publication, cites also include theme being a lead performer at the 50,000+ person Feast of the Hunter’s moon, arguably the largest of its type in the country. Cites also include broadcast on the “The Midnight Special” (4 times in a search of a mere 6 weeks of play lists ) arguably the most noteworthy USA folk music radio program, and one cite is for broadcast statewide on the Wisconsin Public Radio Network stations.

As a sidebar, under #12, one of Lewis’s previous bands was the subject of an hour long PBS television special, but that was not with Traveler’s Dream.

Criteria within the 5 criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions"

Now on to the next group, which is the 5 criteria for inclusion under “composers and performers outside mass media traditions:” I don’t think that there would be any argument that folk music and historical-heavy folk music meets this criteria.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #1. Several of the cited sources have said this about them.

Keep based on meeting criteria #3 “Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre” One that I would cite most specifically is French-American based historical music from the period 350 years ago until about 175 years ago including Voyageur Music. I have watched / sought that field extensively…….hey have not only established, I have never seen an equal despite having sought and searched extensively.

Keep based on criteria #4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. Previous deleters have chided me for even listing their songs much less the writing credits. I have reviewed them, and at least half of the songs on their 4 CD’s were written by them, most of the other half being significant arrangements (by them) of historic songs.

Keep based on Criteria #5 Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Without repeating all of them, I think that cites in the article clearly establish this.

Overview under policy header criteria and Closing

So, the above established that Traveler’s dream meets SEVEN of the criteria, and they are only required to meet one of them. If we were to imagine that eligibility under each and every one of the seven were to magically vanish, there would be a case fulfillment under an 8th criteria which is that if anything met the criteria of the intent of the “normally” wording header of the policy, the other academic and historical dimensions of Traveler’s dream would be it.

From someone who has searched two of the genres for decades, since Stan Rogers died, there has been no one in public light that does the seafaring genre of that style as well as Lewis. And, even from a simply musical performance standpoint, I’ve not seen anyone attempt what they do with Voyageur Music and early French-American Music, much less have a vocalist (Wilson) who is a PhD historian in the same field as the music, and, on a related note, can and does switch concerts all in French for such occasions. It also establishes her as havign performed publicly in this genre for 39 years, and, though a wide array of items in the time line, a prominent and active person in this genre for over 30 years. This adds a whole dimension not only to their notability, but also to what the article offers the readers in this dimension.

I submit that the article and it’s references, summarized above, establish that Traveler's Dream, meets WP notabilty criteria 8 times over vs. the requirement for meeting just one of them. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - End of North800's presentation - - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see that many of the above claims are borne-out by the references. The latter fall basically into 4 categories: (1) sources that are from publications of various levels of obscurity (e.g. Niles Gazette, Muzzle Blasts, the Purdue PR/alum publication "Krannert Magazine", Wilson's thesis, etc.) that don't seem, by themselves, to satisfy "multiple non-trivial published works", for example Helen Magazine appears to be a local "what's happening"-type of PR-glossy that the merchants of Lafayette Indiana furnish for free, (2) sources that very plainly are trivial coverage according to WP:MUSIC, e.g. playlists like this one, the article in Scouting Magazine, the sum-total of coverage here being "The course’s first day included ... attending a campfire featuring folk-music duo Traveler’s Dream and professional storyteller Bob Valentine", the ArtistDirect webpage of Carrie Newcomer's CD, etc., (3) hits to their own website, which are clearly not subject independent, and (4) the Newsweek source. In my view, the whole case hinges on the Newsweek source, in particular what the nature of the coverage is. I've asked about this above, to which DougT1235 replied "these are three pages in the bi-centennial issues showing Wilson performing. Theses are her specificialy, not her in a group or crowd. And no, it is not a three page article about her specifically in the bi-centennial edition of Newsweek". Glad to be corrected if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a case where her likeness appears incidentally as part of a larger event that was actually the focus of the coverage. If that source doesn't actually mention her by name and say something substantive specifically about her, then this may be nothing more than a case of being in the right place at the right time to have your picture taken. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Agricola44. Of the 22 references at the end of the article, there were 15 that I did NOT use (and were not in my description of those used) and you just listed 14 of the 15 as if I HAD used them. You are also making up different criteria for some of the others which is not in the WP standard. And on the one of the 7 that was borderline (small amount of coverage and a photo but in a magazine with 1,000,000 circulation and 3,100,000 readers) I specifically mentioned the small amount of coverage and you repeated what I said. Respectfully North8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the refs that are in the article as it currently stands – those are the ones (and the only ones) that matter. If you feel that 15 of them don't have a place there, then please feel free to remove them. I'm not an expert on this particular musical group, but I do know what constitutes WP:RS and what the closing admin will look for in order to make a decision. FWIW, I'm not making up criteria. The admin will indeed consider whether coverage is "trivial" or "non-trivial" and, moreover, a subject's own website typically does not pass for WP:RS. I'm telling you the way to save your article here, which is to focus on the Newsweek piece. Substantive coverage here could clinch it and some of the panelists seem to know a lot about it and could probably give a precise description very easily. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not say that the "15" of the 22 were not good as references, I said that I did not use them in the 7 I used for criteria #1. And that you went through 14 of the 15 as if I had used them in the 7 for criteria #1. And to clarify, I was talking about you "making up criteria" with respect to the sources (not the coverage)for the purposes of fufilling #1. This baffling recurring Newsweek tangent essentially repeating that this band's notability hinges on 3 pages of Wilson in the bi-centiennial edition of Newsweek Magazine being (unrealistically and contrary to what DougT said) an article about her seems to me to be a back door way to attempt to disparage the extensive and relevant notability related references and material. And, as I clearly stated, it was not used as one of the 7 cited publishings for fufillment of #1. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read the material that has appeared on this page subsequent to my previous vote, my recommendation to delete is strengthened. The vast amount written here is quite out of relation to the trivial nature of the article and suggests obsessive COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

All are urged read this and the article time line closely, (including / especially how starting around March 11 to see how this all started) and all will see that there is certainly obsessionism and veiled animosity in play here, and it it not myself. It started with my gently criticizing a summary undiscussed bulk deletion on another article (not mine) , and now that person and the twin have made a life out of trying to kill this article. For example, spending huge amounts of time on every reference trying to find hairs to split and ways to "spin" it negative. It is a question of principle. right and wrong, and mental investment due to time and effort invested. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may reiterate, the Newsletter article is photos on three pages of Wilson performing, not an article about her. DougT1235 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also reiterate, the academic references I added were to support historical statements and to support a statement about Wilson's focus. DougT1235 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite the rather pointed personal criticism directed at me by DougT1235 and North8000, I likely would have changed to a weak keep if the Newsweek article had been about Wilson. DougT1235 just confirmed that it is not. I think Agricola44 and Xxanthippe have hit the nail on the head. There are only a couple of articles actually about the group or its members--where a summary of the article would even mention their name-- and those are in sources insufficient to get the group over the WP:MUSIC #1 hump (or general notability). All of the work done the last week by North8000 and DougT1235 and the significant personal interest they have taken in the article leads me to believe no better sources are to be found. Therefore, I am even more strongly of the opinion that the group fails notability. Novaseminary (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was about the fifth time that I said it.....for you to feign "discovery" at this point is indicative of the cleverness of your and Agricola44's assault on this article. It's clear that the two of you have each spent a huge amount of time going through the article and its references; and thus could not have missed what I said all of the other times. My compliments to both of you for your cleverness in making your passionate and on-objective assault on this article appear to be the opposite. DougT1235 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how experienced you are personally with WP, but your account exists largely to promote/defend this article. (This is easy to check and I have done so.) The "huge amount of time going through the article and its references" is actually an unwitting compliment – If the collective effort were available, all WP:BLPs would get this level of scrutiny. Such care/accuracy/thoroughness is what characterizes any first-rate reference work, which I'm sure is what we all desire WP to be. (This is quite obvious when you stop to think about it for a moment.) This whole thread gives the perception of canvassing and/or puppetry, but what is more clear here is that several parties do not understand the well-established notability guidelines by which AfD (and WP itself more broadly) operate. Instead, we're treated to the usual accusations and innuendos of those who have, at the very least, a strong emotional sense of ownership/entitlement in a particular article. Closing admin shall please note these points in the decision process. I think it's clear now that there's nothing substantive in the Newsweek source and, consequently, nothing substantive overall with respect to non-trivial WP:RS. This points squarely to a delete. Thanks and over-and-out. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep this article. I am a friend of North8000's, and so I am not going to repeat a lot of stuff. The ad hominem points in both directions are probably slightly needed, as they establish that that there are no objective parties amongst the major participants here, just some that hide it and some that don't. In my biased opinion, North's main presentation seems to most thoroughly and directly deal with the question. I actually am more concerned about addressing the COI ineundo. North is an affectionado of all things Voyageur and many things Folk. About a year ago he started talking about these folks as being a rare find covering both, his wife having spotted them (for him) in a newspaper article saying that they were coming to town and play Voyageur music. Then he got into Wikipedia editing and put a lot into this article creating the second level of mental investment. Finally, I can tell you that what he has written about what some folks have been doing to this article in the last couple weeks is the mild version of what I have been hearing....basically that it is a skillfully camoflaged "revenge" situation. Which his his third motivation. I know what he does for a living and know that he has absolutely no conflict of interest. Well, there's my two cents, with all of my biases which I admit. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" statement follows: North8000 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep this article. Just because a genre is narrow does not mean its frontrunners are not notable. As an avid conoeist and visitor of the Boundary Waters, I can personally attest to the importance and reach of Traveler's Dream's voyageur folk music. Their contributions--if not outright definition of the genre--merit recognition. 174.51.139.196 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to tell us how it is that your only WP edit ever is so highly targeted and specific to this debate? You might also forgive us if we don't take your personal testimonial as WP:RS. BTW, folk music is anything but a narrow genre. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola, you're getting a little over the top on this. None of us (not me, not you) would meet requirements as a WP:RS nor it is a requirement for participating in a discussion page. So you are incorrectly telling a newbie that what they did was wrong. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse the entirely legitimate observations that I made above with telling someone "what they did was wrong" by giving a red-herring argument that those comments are somehow connected to permission to participate in a discussion. That's nonsense. The whole discussion seems rife with WP:COI and WP:CANVAS, which was my point. I agree with you that none of us: myself, you, nor our apparently canvassed friend qualify as WP:RS. You've just condensed this entire, long-winded thread down to its one salient point: there's not a single non-trivial source for this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think that you clearly implied that to the poster. Since most Wikipedia users are viewers, not editors, I'm not sure who you think is worthy of participating. I would think that people who went to the article and saw the deletion notice would be the best possibility outside of of the short list of the main attackers and defenders. You have gone further over the top, saying so many baseless and clearly wrong things that I don't want to continue the length and pain of addressing them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the patronizing "participation" argument – this is entirely irrelevant to notability issue. I'm not even going to address your continued attempts to dress me down with statements like "baseless and clearly wrong things". I get that you and DougT1235 have strong vested interests in this article's continued presence on WP. In fact, the DougT1235 account and your own North8000 account (this is your first user page) apear to both have been created specifically in the service of the Traveler's Dream article. I think we're all tired of belaboring this subject. I do not know what the ultimate verdict on this case will be, but I think what we now agree upon is that there's little likelihood of any new substantive details on Traveler's Dream surfacing and that there's not much point in this discussion continuing. Perhaps an admin could put us all out of our misery here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I submit that this is more of the same, but how 'bout right here right now EVERYBODY just end making characterizations and mis-characterizations of people and their actions. I think that a little of that (at least items partially supported by the facts) needed to be said in order to provide context, but that point has long since been exceeded and it is degenerating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]