Talk:Tim Be Told

Speedy Delete

This page was speedy deleted a while back, and I don't see any improvements in this version. Sourcing is still limited to the band's own web site, and I fail to see how they pass muster for notability in any way. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A few of their songs have won awards from various radio stations, as well as the fact that they have a second album release. I'll be working on the page a bit more, adding a few references, etc. It's hard to find "proof of notability" for a Christian band, as only the listeners in that field will be familiar with them. Also, the exact quote from the page is "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." So an attempt at deletion would be against the guidelines. —Resound (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Added a handful of references that should help endorse their notability from other websites. Let me know if you feel that there's a need for more. —Resound (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't show notability for them, then that would mean that they aren't notable. That's how notability works. And while failing to meet the specific guidelines for notability is not, on it's face, a reason for speedy deletion, being non-notable is, in fact, a reason for speedy deletion. Please take care before telling people that their actions are "against the guidelines" as that sort of thing can be taken quite poorly.

Regarding your additions, you have added one source that is possibly a reliable source and one that is not a reliable source (as it is a blog). While that may stop a speedy delete (it won't always, but it did here), it does not convey notability. And at this point, I would still consider the band to be non-notable. You are welcome to work on the article some more, but if you can't come up with more and better sources, I will likely submit for formal deletion after a while. Read more about reliable sources at the link I provided so you can see what constitutes a good source, and what does not. Good luck. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I apologize for the informality; I have a significant amount of experience regarding smaller wikis, where the policies and guidelines aren't so complex. Although I doubt it counts for much, I noticed that their official Facebook page is just shy of 20,000 fans. Logically, this represents a significant amount of notability. Also, would there be a proper way to source such a figure, or does the fact that it regards Facebook completely void it? Thanks. —Resound (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That would count as a primary source, so only if some other magazine or paper wrote about it would the facebook fan numbers count for anything. On facebook you are nothing if you are under 100000's though. So it does not even count as a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but I think if you're talking about a minor Wikipedia page, 20,000 current potential viewers justify having it. Anyway, I added a few more sources. I think that should be good enough. I mean, I could find hundreds, but that would be pointless, I suppose. The only sources are web pages, due to the fact that newer groups rarely are in published, printed materials. Also, one of the sources, the Seattle Examiner (examiner.com) is blacklisted, so that's where a few of the unsourced facts could be found. —Resound (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that "The only sources are web pages, due to the fact that newer groups rarely are in published, printed materials." And that, I think, is much of the problem. What you are describing is a lack of notability. All of the sources you have added are, in my opinion, not reliable sources. I see blogs, and other similar forms of media, and nothing more substantial. In addition, you cite the Gospel Music Channel site as a source for a statement, but the referenced page actually has no text. That seems like original research, another problem.

I will mark up the article where I see more problems. I honestly believe your intentions are good, but I also honestly believe that this band lacks notability. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are very few printed materials that can readily be found available on the Internet. If a local newspaper were to cover it, it likely wouldn't be very accessible, due to the fact that for most, you need to have a purchased subscription. As for the Gospel Music Channel, although there is no actual text, it was their feature for that week, as the headline states. I have no real personal interest in the group, but once I heard their music, I wanted to look up their page on Wikipedia, and found that none existed. I wouldn't even be here if I thought it wasn't worth the page. Not to mention that far less notable groups exist on Wikipedia. Where the real issue lies is which pages are seen by someone who wishes to challenge them. I mean, I can back up nearly every statement multiple times from various groups, but I think that it would be overkill. I suppose I'll just keep searching for sources, but I really have no means to find the printed material you want, whether it exists or not. —Resound (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait... you're saying that the band's statement about their own hometown isn't reliable? I'm sorry, but I think that's going a little too far. The only thing I can see is that you so desire to get rid of this page, so you're challenging the accurate information. As a fellow editor, I'd appreciate it if you would try to help, rather than challenge everything, even useful information. —Resound (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy with the assumptions of bad faith. If I wanted to delete the page, I would have submitted it for articles for deletion. Instead I took the time to place a bunch of tags, and to explain why it is that the article is being looked at for deletion.

You really need to read up on the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and reliable sources because a lot of what you're saying shows that you aren't familiar with them. Local papers, for example, don't do very much when it comes to conveying notability. So even if this group is covered in some local papers, that wouldn't make the case that they are notable. That's covered in the guidelines I linked to. Regarding my tagging of sources as unreliable, please note that what I'm tagging is an unreliable source (or a potentially unreliable one, really). Forget the content of that source for a moment, and understand that I'm saying that the source itself is in question. If an article in the New York Times quoted the band as saying something, that information would be just fine as it comes from a reliable source. But if a blog (for example) has the same quote, that is an unreliable source.

Regarding the band's own site, that is generally a bad source for most information. For the information about their musical styles, I think a personal site is okay (which is why I didn't tag that as a problem), but again, it always helps to have secondary, reliable sources to backup personal sites (and the personal site never conveys notability). I would also point out that your argument that there are other groups who are even less notable than this band who have articles doesn't hold water (see WP:OTHERSTUFF ). The answer, then, isn't to add more articles about non-notable bands, but to apply the same principles to those articles as we are applying to this one, and to delete some of those if needed as well.

I am trying to help, but my ability to help is limited by the fact that I simply don't think that the sources exist to show notability. Keep in mind that I've been here before on an earlier version of this same article, and the result was that it was, indeed, deleted. I am trying to help you to understand the policies that govern notability and sourcing, but you really need to read and understand them if you hope to improve the article to the point of it passing a formal delete request. I'm sorry you don't see me as helping - I truly am. I have no personal bias against this band and in fact, I have no idea who they are. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you're trying to help, I just think that adding a few dozen tags on to what I would consider to be decent enough sources takes things a little too far. If a band will refer to themselves as an X-style group from area X, I think that it qualifies as reliable. I have a relatively good amount of understanding of the policies, but in previous works, no one has challenged the similar sources I've used. I understand that there's not really a way to "add up" sources, but a couple of them from unrelated websites and blogs should be enough to make a point that a larger organization could. Quite simply put, I have no idea if this group has been written about in a paper such as the New York Times; from my personal experience, most large news organizations require a subscription to be able to read their online articles.

I'll look around for some more information, but I think that the amount of followers on places such as Facebook and MySpace (although comparatively small) justifies having a Wikipedia page. The idea of notability was to ensure that individuals weren't creating pages on themselves or a single track off of an album. Or their dog, I suppose. This group keeps growing, has several popular songs, etc, and I think that they qualify for notability from the sources I've found thus far. I'll add some more, though. —Resound (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) No, "adding up" sources that are not considered reliable does not "equal" a reliable source. No, the number of followers someone has on Facebook (or other social networking sites) does not convey notability.

Let's try it this way. According to WP:BAND, here are the guidelines for notability for a musical group. If this group meets one or more of these criteria, then they may be notable. If not, then it's likely that they are not.

WP:BAND

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

I am not aware of any claims to satisfy numbers 2-12. If you are, then please show that here. The only item I think this group may have a claim to satisfy is number 1, and that relies on reliable sources. If I'm wrong, and if you believe this group satisfies any of the criteria from 2-12, please explain how. Otherwise, we will be distilling the conversation down to whether the sources you have cited are reliable or not from a Wikipedia standpoint. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on a reply to the message above. Do you believe the band satisfies 2-12 above? If so, please spell that out. If not, then we are distilling this down to a discussion about reliable sources. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go at it then. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to put much more effort into it. I honestly can't say I'm too familiar with the band itself. As I said before, I looked it up, saw that there was no page, did some research, and decided that the band was notable enough for a page. I do have one more item, but am unsure how to go about listed it; the band is signed to William Morris, as is indicated here. They are included with a handful of very notable groups, such as [Switchfoot]], Flyleaf, and a few others. I'm not sure how this would be placed, or if it would even matter. If you could help me with that, I'd much appreciate it. Regardless, I don't have very much time to continue working on the page. If you think it needs to be challenged, feel free to go ahead and call for a vote. Thanks. —Resound (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)