Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alofoque (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alofoque
Non-notable band. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alofoque for a translation of the source for the claim of their appearances. This is a group with no albums, and the only source we have for their tour appears to be a press release/booking solicitation for the band. Previous AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion of the article; at the time, the source mentioned the "tour" but the article did not. However, the speedy deletion has been reversed now, but as the previous AfD was closed, we have to start over. This article is blatant promotion of a non-notable group. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pro forma Delete. Nobody wants to keep this, it barely even counts as an assertion of notability, sounds like speedy should've stuck. Opabinia regalis 05:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again per nom. --Coredesat 08:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the band meets WP:MUSIC as they have toured internationally. "Nobody wants to keep this" is false, as I do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons stated at my original nomination.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Ephemeral bands are quite interesting, wish many more form SF and LA from
1965-1968 were in Wiki, so wouldn't judge this until 2046. Snugspout 14:24, 16 June 2006 (OTC)
- Delete - They've released nothing, there's no decent sources. They absolutely haven't toured internationally as claimed above. Playing a gig at various bars in another country doesn't an international tour make. The local music bar had an Irish band in recently, OMG INTERNATIONAL TOUR. - Hahnchen 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. So even though they toured internationally, they...didn't? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to promote themselves in a foreign country is not an international concert tour. The difference is, in an international tour, people go specifically to see them, these guys just show up at clubs. According to your definitions of an international tour, any half baked school choir who have been abroad are international sensations. - Hahnchen 13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They'd meet the touring requirements, sure. And you don't think people go to see groups at clubs? That's an interesting rationale. You don't listen to much obscure music, do you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised, I listen to a lot of obscure music, although not as obscure as alofoque. Bands do promos at clubs and bars all the time, doesn't mean they're notable. And the majority of the audience don't goto clubs to see a group that plays a 10 minute set, shouts "I LOVE YOU COVENTRY (mispronounced)" and then proceeds to hand out flyers to the people who just wish the DJ would get back to business. - Hahnchen 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to hear, then. The "majority" doesn't matter, however. If we went by the majority, there's a lot of stuff we'd never keep regardless of the press or touring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised, I listen to a lot of obscure music, although not as obscure as alofoque. Bands do promos at clubs and bars all the time, doesn't mean they're notable. And the majority of the audience don't goto clubs to see a group that plays a 10 minute set, shouts "I LOVE YOU COVENTRY (mispronounced)" and then proceeds to hand out flyers to the people who just wish the DJ would get back to business. - Hahnchen 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They'd meet the touring requirements, sure. And you don't think people go to see groups at clubs? That's an interesting rationale. You don't listen to much obscure music, do you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to promote themselves in a foreign country is not an international concert tour. The difference is, in an international tour, people go specifically to see them, these guys just show up at clubs. According to your definitions of an international tour, any half baked school choir who have been abroad are international sensations. - Hahnchen 13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. So even though they toured internationally, they...didn't? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, toured internationally have they? Got some reliable press sources for that? Playing a bar abroad does not make an international tour. If you don't have any sources to suggest an "international tour" then it fails WP:MUSIC. Ephemeral bands may well be interesting, but as far as an encylopedia goes they are cruft, and cruft with no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for plugging wannabees. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The site that makes the assertion isn't their official website, but a radio station one. Third party, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem as I see it is in interpreting the language at WP:MUSIC: "international concert tour." There is no guidance on what this includes and I think there needs to be based on this afd. A number of bands I have known (in college etc.)—completely non-notable in every way and which never garnered any wide fame—went on "tour," playing gigs in bars and other small venues in other countries. Does this fit the "international concert tour" standard? I think not, and it fails the 'Potter Stewart test' of notability. This is separate from the question here of whether the source of the reported tour is reliable. I would propose that we think about giving the ambiguous phrase some limiting parameters. A band that has played a few gigs in other countries but is not famous by any standard should not have a loophole claim for notability solely based on their ability to travel --Fuhghettaboutit 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I think that if a band has shown initiative to tour outside of their "home base" if you will, it shows that they're not some random guitar band. The WP:MUSIC guidelines are designed so bands with some assertion of nobility can be kept, it's not designed to keep bands and groups like this, who appear to do some actual touring in and out of their "home base." I have no clue what the "Potter Stewart test" is, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their initiative is irrelevant, their actual notability is not. Likewise, WP:MUSIC guidelines are not designed so that bands with assertions of notability can be kept, the guidelines are an attempt to define standards for what is notable; assertions of notability simply take an article of the no-investigation-necessary-to-delete, speedy criteria. Potter Stewart was a U.S. Supreme Court justice best known for his opinion in an obscenity case, where he said in sum and substance that it's hard to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. The concept has become generalized. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, right. Knew the case, not who said it. It's interesting to note that it was probably one of the single worst rulings ever, and I'm appalled that it's being applied here. Regardless, I think the basic standards here have been met. If you want to change the basic standard, I think it's a discussion at WP:MUSIC, not here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I'm not proposing changing the standard. I'm saying that your citation and interpretation of the words "international concert tour" is idiosyncratic and overbroad but understandable given the lack of interpretive guidance for that expression. The standard should not be changed. It should, however, be given the clarity necessary so that people don't make the mistake of thinking, at the extremes of rationalizing interpretation, that a band which plays in someone's backyard in another country has met that standard. A band that has played a series of nightclubs abroad is not, I think, what is meant by "international concert tour".--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- so what kind of venues are okay for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How bout those that imply notability? I know, that sounds tautological. Look: Notability is not conferred by playing or not playing in certain venues but by what the type of venues played in implies about a band's importance. Things are notable because of their impact. The criteria is used not to show that things are notable because they meet the criteria; rather, because notability is difficult to measure, they set forth criteria that things that are notable tend to share so that we can recognize their notability. So we can't take an autocratic approach and apply standards blindly. In the case of bands, you know that booking at bars and the like is easily done by band solicitation. Filling a 30,000 seat stadium is done by invite because the band is already recognized as important by third parties. There is a middle ground between these two, and it is to that knife's edge that we have to apply some pure Potter Stewart judgment, which is why afd's on articles which are not clearly one way or the other are difficult. Here we have indicia of the band being nobodies (google lack of results, etc.), and no reliable source but an online radio write up existing in a vacuum, and what text there is doesn't give us anything but nightclubs and local appearances. We're meausuring whether the band is well known, cited, thought about, referenced, influential, groundbreaking, etc. Since playing in nightclubs doesn't help us measure this, it's a poor basis for establishing notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- well, for one, even some of the most notable local venues (for instance, I'm in the Boston area, and the Middle East is a very well known club, and is mostly booked - even by quite notable indie bands - by "band solicitiation." At some point, we simply have to recognize that the touring requirement is designed for bands that take the initiative to expand their notability as opposed to possibly using Wikipedia as a springboard. In the example of this band, however, calling a band that doesn't speak the english language and which plays a rather obscure form of reggae nobodies because we struggle to find sources we can read is a bit much. We obviously disagree on this one, and that's fine as a matter of interpretation, but I do feel you're being unnecessarily - and possibly unrealistically - strict on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say nobody, I mean it in the sense of notability— they are nobodies the same way I am a nobody. But I think you're right, that that might have been a poorly thought out vocabulary choice. Look's like the article will be kept on no consensus anyway. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- well, for one, even some of the most notable local venues (for instance, I'm in the Boston area, and the Middle East is a very well known club, and is mostly booked - even by quite notable indie bands - by "band solicitiation." At some point, we simply have to recognize that the touring requirement is designed for bands that take the initiative to expand their notability as opposed to possibly using Wikipedia as a springboard. In the example of this band, however, calling a band that doesn't speak the english language and which plays a rather obscure form of reggae nobodies because we struggle to find sources we can read is a bit much. We obviously disagree on this one, and that's fine as a matter of interpretation, but I do feel you're being unnecessarily - and possibly unrealistically - strict on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How bout those that imply notability? I know, that sounds tautological. Look: Notability is not conferred by playing or not playing in certain venues but by what the type of venues played in implies about a band's importance. Things are notable because of their impact. The criteria is used not to show that things are notable because they meet the criteria; rather, because notability is difficult to measure, they set forth criteria that things that are notable tend to share so that we can recognize their notability. So we can't take an autocratic approach and apply standards blindly. In the case of bands, you know that booking at bars and the like is easily done by band solicitation. Filling a 30,000 seat stadium is done by invite because the band is already recognized as important by third parties. There is a middle ground between these two, and it is to that knife's edge that we have to apply some pure Potter Stewart judgment, which is why afd's on articles which are not clearly one way or the other are difficult. Here we have indicia of the band being nobodies (google lack of results, etc.), and no reliable source but an online radio write up existing in a vacuum, and what text there is doesn't give us anything but nightclubs and local appearances. We're meausuring whether the band is well known, cited, thought about, referenced, influential, groundbreaking, etc. Since playing in nightclubs doesn't help us measure this, it's a poor basis for establishing notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- so what kind of venues are okay for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I'm not proposing changing the standard. I'm saying that your citation and interpretation of the words "international concert tour" is idiosyncratic and overbroad but understandable given the lack of interpretive guidance for that expression. The standard should not be changed. It should, however, be given the clarity necessary so that people don't make the mistake of thinking, at the extremes of rationalizing interpretation, that a band which plays in someone's backyard in another country has met that standard. A band that has played a series of nightclubs abroad is not, I think, what is meant by "international concert tour".--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, right. Knew the case, not who said it. It's interesting to note that it was probably one of the single worst rulings ever, and I'm appalled that it's being applied here. Regardless, I think the basic standards here have been met. If you want to change the basic standard, I think it's a discussion at WP:MUSIC, not here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their initiative is irrelevant, their actual notability is not. Likewise, WP:MUSIC guidelines are not designed so that bands with assertions of notability can be kept, the guidelines are an attempt to define standards for what is notable; assertions of notability simply take an article of the no-investigation-necessary-to-delete, speedy criteria. Potter Stewart was a U.S. Supreme Court justice best known for his opinion in an obscenity case, where he said in sum and substance that it's hard to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. The concept has become generalized. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a no consensus defaulting to keep would be a bad result: we should be able to get to a consensus here, if enough people participate. Mangojuicetalk 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I think that if a band has shown initiative to tour outside of their "home base" if you will, it shows that they're not some random guitar band. The WP:MUSIC guidelines are designed so bands with some assertion of nobility can be kept, it's not designed to keep bands and groups like this, who appear to do some actual touring in and out of their "home base." I have no clue what the "Potter Stewart test" is, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem as I see it is in interpreting the language at WP:MUSIC: "international concert tour." There is no guidance on what this includes and I think there needs to be based on this afd. A number of bands I have known (in college etc.)—completely non-notable in every way and which never garnered any wide fame—went on "tour," playing gigs in bars and other small venues in other countries. Does this fit the "international concert tour" standard? I think not, and it fails the 'Potter Stewart test' of notability. This is separate from the question here of whether the source of the reported tour is reliable. I would propose that we think about giving the ambiguous phrase some limiting parameters. A band that has played a few gigs in other countries but is not famous by any standard should not have a loophole claim for notability solely based on their ability to travel --Fuhghettaboutit 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Indrian 17:43, 21 June 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.