Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Band Famous (2nd nomination)

Band Famous

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

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed; almost all sources are passing mentions or have nothing to do with the band. The band does not appear to meet any criterion of WP:NMUSIC, with no major label albums, charted singles, or notable appearances. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources that do mention the band even in passing are independent. Delete. —Cryptic 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr from article creator

_____________________________

I have been watching this page. Not only was this group discussed significantly over live broadcast internationally, but the group was also thoroughly discussed on a radio program through National Public Radio / Minnesota Public Radio. It was not a trivial mention as one user noted. Also, verified Twitter accounts are credible sources according to Wikipedia Verifiability terms. Slug of Atmosphere, a pioneer of hip-hop, who also has a record label and is renowned worldwide, publicly tweeted his support for this group, which directly relates to the article. It is therefore a verifiable source. In addition to the radio broadcast with NPR/MPR, there was a feature written on Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog, by Jay Gabler, which is also a verifiable source. It is a blog of a nation-wide radio station.

To quote the user above, TenPoundHammer, "None of the sources that do mention the band even in passing are independent." How is National Public Radio not an independent source? How is Slug of Atmosphere not an independt source? Also 89.3FM The Current (The Local Show included) is independently funded by the listeners, which is about as independent as one can get.

Taken directl;y from Wikipedia:Verifiability page:

"Newspaper and magazine blogs Policy shortcut: WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below."

(User talk:avenueofwarcraft)

Someone is clearly trolling on this group's Wikipedia, or I should say some people. I'm sharing the references, which I've thoroughly examined myself. For some reason these sources are not staying up in the references as they should. To reiterate what user avenueofwarcraft above me said, according to Wikipedia's Verifiability page, the sources that I'm sharing below are *independent* and are verifiable. The blog is from a national radio station, by credible, independent writer, Jay Gabler. Not only was a very nice feature written on the band by Gabler, but they were discussed on The Local Show on 89.3FM The Current by Gabler and David Campbell (radio host), which is broadcast nationwide. It directly relates to the article and the band's credibility, and it highlights the Kickstarter they attempted. They've also had multiple interviews beyond these that one can research, but I personally feel these sources are the most credible and should be included as verifiable sources on the group's Wikipedia page:

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/

http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23

Also here is the tweet mentioned above by Slug of hip-hop group Atmosphere, and it directly relates to the article per Wikipedia standards of using a verified twitter account's tweet as a verifiable reference:

https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520

He, along with Greg Deocampo and others are among some of the band's very well-known and respectable supporters. Tell me how these three sources that keep being removed from the article are considered trivial? I think those who see it that way are mistaken or at the very least did not take a look at any of the above links.

All users Wikihounding are being reported. TenPoundHammer, please familiarize yourself with this:

Wikihounding[edit] See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:User analysis tools and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing § Campaign to drive away productive contributors Shortcuts: WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUND WP:WIKIHOUNDING Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

@WeAreAllStars: To answer your questions: Twitter accounts are viable references in certain cases, but they should not be used excessively as sources. I see no point where NPR is used as a source. Local radio station blogs are not reliable sources because they are self published. The links from The Current are the only sources that seem reliable, but only one publication so far does not transfer into notability. Nominating a page for deletion twice is not by any stretch of the imagination "wikihounding"; I nominated it twice only because the first nomination failed to reach a consensus, and it's ludicrous for you to think that a deletion nomination is on par with harassment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS to learn what constitutes a reliable source; and please consult WP:BAND and tell me which criterion, if any, you think Band Famous meets. So far I was unable to find anything beyond the Current articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more tl;dr

____

@TenPoundHammer: The tweet by Slug of Atmosphere on the verified Atmosphere twitter account was not used excessively, it was mentioned once and cited properly and it relates directly to the article and yet it has been deleted repeatedly, along with the verifiable sources of The Local Current radio show, and the feature written by JAY GABLER of Minnesota Public Radio, which is a subdivision of National Public Radio, and 89.3FM The Current has listeners nationwide and is completely independent. The blog was not self-published, it was a legitimately published feature on the band that should not be written off as "a trivial mention". Also the comment about CNET that a band member put it up there? That is not the case, in case you aren't aware, apps and other software for download are added to that site by administrators of CNET. The band didn't even publicly announce the release of the app they built until June 13th, and yet it was up on CNET on June 2nd. It doesn't even make logical sense that the band would have published it there before they went public with the launch of their app.

Regarding the consensus of the initial nomination for deletion, it was closed, and the article was up for good, although sources continued to be deleted via disruptive editing, and you once more nominated it for deletion. It wasn't the fact that it was nominated for deletion that led me to find it viable as harassment, but see Examples of disruptive editing:

1. Is tendentious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing>: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

Articles from independent and reliable sources continually are removed, such as the following three sources, which according to Wikipedia’s terms are all verifiable:

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/ <http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/> http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23 <http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23> Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Jay Gabler’s feature on the band therefore is a verifiable source, as published on Minnesota Public Radio’s 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog.

https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520 <https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520> Per Wikipedia terms of Verifiability, a tweet by a verified twitter account if it directly relates to the articles is accepted as a verifiable source.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

Edward321, leave the article be--the perceptive reader can figure out what's what. Let the AfD run its course. Now, if anyone can format WeAreAllStars' comments properly... Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]