Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

3-B (unremarkable bands)[edit]

"An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • This is a subset of the guidelines WP:MUSIC. It is not possible to pass the music criteria without releasing an album (point 3 of WP:MUSIC, and likely 1 and 7) or receiving media attention (points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7), or containing a well-known musician (point 5). It is assumed that any band making a chart hit will be covered in such media as radio stations and music television.
  • This is a new proposal, since proposal 3 has a critical flaw in the wording, that was thankfully spotted within hours of its creation.
  • The point of this proposal is that minor garage bands and high school music groups frequently create articles about themselves, despite them having no fame whatsoever. Such articles tend to receive unanimous delete-votes on VFD.
  • It is possible (though highly unlikely) that a stub article is written about a famous musician, without the article asserting an album release or media coverage. However, it is likely that such a stub will be improved rather than deleted by well-meaning admins or RC patrollers. Also, if it happens to be deleted, it can easily be recreated with actual content.
  • The Dell-Vikings has been cited as an example of an article that would have been improperly speedied by this criterion. However, please look at its original content ([1]), and consider that this may be a prime example of a too-poor article on a worthy subject.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.


This is a reworded version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A, in an attempt to meet an important concern from there. If you have voted there, please vote here as well.

See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C, which is a reworded version to address concerns raised here. If you have voted in either 3-A or here, please vote here.


This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).


  1. Support, we need a limit somewhere PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 09:56 (UTC) [2]
  2. Still support with new wording. Alphax τεχ 5 July 2005 10:11 (UTC) [3]
  3. Yes, this is acceptable and would improve the status quo. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
  5. -Splash 5 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
  6. Sounds even better now. Hermione1980 5 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  7. Support. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  8. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
  9. This will allow speedy of the most egregious garage bands. VfD is still available for those in doubt. Denni 2005 July 5 17:55 (UTC)
  10. The proposatl is not weakened by this. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 5 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
  11. This would significantly lighten VfD's burden. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  12. Support. It would allow a speedy of the most egregious garage bands. However, if somebody were to write an article about a side project that only met for one practice but still involved a musician in a decently notable band, that would still get VfD'd and hopefully deleted (see Zao for some examples). (Do I understand that correctly?) --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  13. Support with the revised wording. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
  14. Even if the band is notable, an article on a band that has no such references is "content-free", and can be deleted anyway. ----A D Monroe III 5 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
    The music inclusion criteria are widely accepted on VfD, and articles that fail to meet them do not survive. Support per Denni and A D Monroe III. Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
    • Support withdrawn: 3-C is the superior version. Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
    This proposal would also apply to some bands that meet the WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Factitious July 6, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
    Support, for the same reasons I support the original version (but this is better). -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 00:49 (UTC)
    Vote withdrawn as inconsistent with my support of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 16:50 (UTC)
  15. Support. Big improvement. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
  16. Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
  17. Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
  18. Support this wording as well... any wording in fact. Sasquatch′TalkContributions July 6, 2005 04:27 (UTC)
  19. Support. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)
  20. G Rutter 6 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)
  21. Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
  22. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)
  23. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
  24. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:21 (UTC)
  25. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
  26. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  27. If for every two thousand KMA-style vanity band article that get deleted we have to re-create one The Dell-Vikings stub we are way ahead. Aaron Brenneman 14:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  28. Dsmdgold 14:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Better criteria. I can trust admins to move disputed speedy deletes to VFD.Inigmatus 15:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. IanManka 05:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Vegaswikian 04:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support EdwinHJ | Talk 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


  1. Oppose. Although I agree that bands that do not meet WP:MUSIC have no place here, it is inappropriate for articles to be speedied because the author omitted to list critical characteristics. I would support a form of this that said that we can speedy bands formed since 1990 (say) of whom these things are not asserted in the article or on Google. — Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 10:27 (UTC) [4]
  2. Why have votes been removed? This is vote tampering. I still oppose this, as The Dell-Vikings would still qualify (the current version). The article does not assert any media coverage or mention any albums (a single is not an album — terminology is important). Pburka 5 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
    • No, your old vote is on the other version of the proposal, here. Sorry if I was unclear about that. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 13:22 (UTC)
    • Here's another example of an article which would have been deleted under this proposal: Steve Poltz. It was speedied originally, moved to VfD since it didn't meet existing speedy criteria, and easily passed. Pburka 6 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
    I reiterate my comments from the previous version of the proposal: I wrote the revised version of The Dell-Vikings article, which clearly asserts that the group satisfied WP:MUSIC criterion #1 (they had two top 10 singles in the USA). I didn't discuss their albums because albums were less of a priority for 1950s doo-wop groups than they are for contemporary bands. (They did have at least one album.) I don't know what kind of media coverage they got, although the fact that they had two top 10 singles implies that they must have had some. So I vote no to this particular proposal. Let me emphasize, the revised version of The Dell-Vikings still could be speedied even though it clearly asserts that the group satisfies criterion number 1. Here's a hypothetical article which could be speedied under Proposal 3-B: Band Aid was an ad hoc musical group formed to record a single for Ethiopian famine relief. Their lone recording, "Do They Know It's Christmas," went to Number One on the British singles chart, sold over 3 million copies and became the biggest selling single in British history (at the time). Note no mention of an album (which they didn't have), no mention of media coverage (which they did have), and no mention of famous members (which they did have), but clear mention of a single which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion no. 1. --Metropolitan90 July 5, 2005 14:08 (UTC) This vote is being withdrawn for now per guidelines relating to chart hits. Sorry for the long strikeout text. --Metropolitan90 July 5, 2005 14:46 (UTC)
    • One question though - if a band scores a top hit (as this one claims), how can it not have media coverage? Top hits are played by zillions of radio stations and music television channels. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
      • Oh it must have had media coverage, i would think. But if the article fails to assert that it had such coverage, must the admin involved draw the inference? By the strict letter of the wording of this revised proposal, an article which asserts a hit but not the media coverage is subject to spedy deletion, is it not? DES 5 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
  3. Close, but still not good enough IMO. It is possible for an article to directly assert fulfilling one of the WP:MUSIC criteria without explictly asserting media coverage, although if the claim is true that almost surely would have been media coverage. I also think it might be possible to fulfill criterion 6: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city with little or no media coverage, and no mainstream media coverage. I think the proposal should say that if any of the criteria mentioned at WP:MUSIC are specifically asserted in the article, then it is off the table for speedy deletion. DES 5 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
  4. Dunno what it is with these "does not assert" things. If an article doesn't assert something important about a band, then the solution is to assert it, not delete the article. If you can't find anything remarkable about the band, then consider listing on VfD'. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
    • the general idea with these "do not assert" criteria is, as I understand it, that lots of junk articles are being created, which do not assert any reson for being notable. The trick is to find ones which can reasonbly be speedy deleted, to reduce the load on VfD, and where the VfD result is pretty much forgone. The ida is that in certian categories, if an article does not make an asssertion of some sort of importance, it is probably because no such assertion can be honestly made, not because it could be made but the person who wrote the articel forgot to do so. I suuport the concept in proiciple. If an article about a muisic group fails to assert any of the WP:MUSIC criteria or facts from which one or more of they can pretty obviously be implied, then I think it is a good candidate for speedy deletion. Obviously if anyone who sees an article knows that such an assertion could have been made but wasn't, that person should improve the article, not speedy it. DES 5 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
      • I note that I object to unilateral deletions on this basis. No objection to this proposal if deletion was to be carried out solely using the mechanism described in P1-A. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
  5. Agree with DES. It ought to simply say: "and the article does not provide information suggesting the musical group satisfies at least one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC." Enshrining some but not other criteria as policy is awkward and also prevents the music guidelines themselves from being a flexible document if need be. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 15:30 (UTC)
    I have created Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C which says just that. Take a look. DES 5 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
  6. Too special-purpose — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  7. Agree with DES. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:22 (UTC)
  8. Per DES Xoloz 5 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  9. Instruction-crept rendition of "Proposer doesn't like music articles" - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Why would a new article on a music band mention its album releases or media coverage? This needs further investigation and taking to VFD. David | Talk 5 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. This would allow speedy deletion of articles that demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:26 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. No reason that a new user should know that they have to cite media coverage in the article. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  13. As in 3-A, ensuring someone doesn't meet WP:MUSIC needs a VfD. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
  14. Oppose in favor of Proposal 3-C, which addresses the problems of instruction creep and subjectivity of this proposal. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] July 6, 2005 03:23 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. While I would generally support this if it was community consensus, I am opposing to indicate preference of 3-C. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. As with 3-A, it both assumes too much about the Wiki-knowledge of the article-creator, and about the criteria for value and notability of musicians. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
  17. Oppose in favor of Proposal 3-C Sietse 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Mel Etitis. Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Same reasoning as my vote for Proposal 3. This is only a small subset of WP:MUSIC. It takes a VfD to determine if a band meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
  21. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:53 (UTC) No, a closer look by a wider diversity of editors is in order in these cases. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
  22. Opppose. Too technical for CSD. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)
  23. 'Oppose per Mel Etitis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:00 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. See comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  25. Oppose in favor of 3-C. TheCoffee 21:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  27. No. JuntungWu 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. "Album" is much too subjective. David Remahl 03:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 04:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Oppose don't like wording. Hiding 23:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


I support the idea of this proposal but have some specific concerns:

  • Musicians prior to the era of recorded music may be notable despite having never made a recording, and demonstrating media coverage during creation of the article to guard against deletion seems like an unnecessary burden. Did John Dowland receive anything we would call "media coverage?"
  • There do exist notable present-day composers and musicians who have neither received media attention nor made recordings. These would include, particularly, those musicians working on motion picture, television, and advertising soundtracks.
  • Though a lesser problem, these criteria may be circumvented by bands wise to the ways of Wikipedia. Neither "media coverage" or "recording" are defined, and both are fuzzy concepts subject to a wide variety of interpretations. Does an internet-distributed recording count? Nearly all present-day bands and musicians, even the least notable, have made recordings for their own use and for distribution to their friends and fans. There is no clear line between this casual distribution and a more concerted self-published recording; the early work of bands such as R.E.M and the Dead Kennedys were self-published, with no difference other than quantity and distribution compared to the average garage band. Does coverage in a book constitute "media coverage" or do we just mean the current-events publications that we usually refer to when we say "media?"

I would propose something like this: "An article about a present-day musician or music group that does not include clear evidence of notability."

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)