Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnraisers
- 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 was delete. Neil ╦ 11:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete # No assertion of passing any notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC, one source, meaning they fail the mutltiple media mentions stipulated by WP:MUSIC, lack of sources means a verification issue with any claim to notability that could be made. Band seemingly fails all notability criteria laid out by WP:MUSIC. DarkSaber2k 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- continuing a discussion from Talk:Barnraisers... DarkSaber, please understand the difference between notability and an assertion of notability. If there really is only one non-trivial 3rd party source out there whose subject is this band, then the band fails Wikipedia:Notability. However, the fact that the article already cites one such source is at least an assertion of notability because more sources might be out there.
Because the article asserts notability, it's up to you (and me, and any editor who encounters this article) to do a little research to try to see if there are other sources out there. The time for AfD is after you've done the research and found no other sources. Pan Dan 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your such a big fan of quoting sentences, here's one for you from WP:V#Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Meaning the burden of providing sources is on the people who say there are sources, not those who say there aren't any. DarkSaber2k 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here isn't verifiability of content, it's deletion of an article, since we find ourselves, after all, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You're proposing to delete an article because its subject does not pass a notability guideline, but you haven't done any actual research to see if it actually fails that guideline. Pan Dan 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and by "research" I mean "Google." Doesn't take that long. Pan Dan 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article fails to assert notability. Wikipedia readers should not be expected to go trawling the net to find out if an article should be here or not. If the article fails to assert notability, or provide reliable sources for verification then it has a high chance of something like this happening. All the notability in the world means squat if the article fails to make even a mention of it. As I said before, the burden of proof is not on me to prove the are non-notable, the burden is on the people claiming it is notable to prove that. DarkSaber2k 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here isn't verifiability of content, it's deletion of an article, since we find ourselves, after all, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You're proposing to delete an article because its subject does not pass a notability guideline, but you haven't done any actual research to see if it actually fails that guideline. Pan Dan 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your such a big fan of quoting sentences, here's one for you from WP:V#Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Meaning the burden of providing sources is on the people who say there are sources, not those who say there aren't any. DarkSaber2k 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search[1] suggests that this band is not (yet) the subject of multiple non-trivial 3rd party sources. (I also checked Lexis-Nexis, where the Wilmington Star article already cited in the Wikipedia article is the only result.)
Therefore it's impossible at this time to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article about them. The article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability.Pan Dan 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently searching and adding as I find more references from 3rd party sources. A google search of just the 'barnraisers' alone does not result in all articles regarding the band. One article in particular appears to have an invalid link at the moment.Dajbow 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see anything here, or in a bit of searching, that meets WP:BAND. Nothing like a national tour, a radio hit, multiple albums on a major label. Looks like a good solid regional band, but not notable by wikipedia guidelines. Capmango 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing to pass WP:BAND here, just a single review, and trivial mentions in show listings --Steve (Stephen) talk 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BAND requirements. Wiki is not a platform to promote an upcoming band either. --Madchester
As noted before I'm not affliated with the band and this article does not in anyway promote the band. This article gives a clear account of the band's history and their notability in a new generation of bluegrass music. The article also references several 3rd party sources including reviews and a radio interview. I would argue that this band does meet the requirements of WP:BAND, notably categories 1 and 7.Dajbow 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BAND the entry must meet "any one" of the criteria. The entry clearly meets criteria 1 and 7. And with all due respect, the hostility toward this article seems to suggest a bias toward the genre of Bluegrass which by its nature relies not on massive tours and album sells, but on live performances and grassroots support. I assume that is why the policy makers of Wikipedia wrote the requirements as they did; to prevent narrow or tenditious judgment of content. Emerson1975 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my recommendation to keep the article based on the Wilmington Star article and the Encore magazine article reprinted on the band's website (but why can't I find it in the Encore archives?). Emerson, for the second time, please assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Pan Dan 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's not in the Encore archives. I think it was up there as I get a broken link to the article in a google search of 'Barnraisers and Encore magazine'.Dajbow 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The limits of the written word; I was not trying to imply malice, just suggesting that from the tone of the comments there may have been an unconscious tendency to judge apples by oranges' criteria. No insult intended. I will try to address the problem with the Encore archives. Emerson1975 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources are sufficient under N or BAND to establish notability. I urge the closing admin to consider that additional references were added after most of the delete comments above.--Kubigula (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to October 2006's Encore magazine article now includes direct link to Encore Magazine's archives and not the reprint on the band's own website.Dajbow 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the references are trivial mentions or from questionable publications. Doesn't appear to be enough to warrant an article. 17Drew 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely baffled by the reactions to this article. The article states referenced facts about the band, their repertoire, their influences and their connection to a specific musical genre. The references are legitimate, not questionable, publications. And though I have no affiliation with those publications or the radio station on which one of the interviews appears, I find it condescending and insulting that they are referred to as trivial or questionable simply because they are small, independent or local publications. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with far less significance and fewer references (in some cases no references) that are not challenged or tagged for deletion. And I find it a bit hypocritical that the article is being challenged for its notability by an editor whose major contributions to Wikipedia are lightly referenced articles about individual No Doubt songs and the band King Changó whose entire article consists of two sentences and a single reference, which is the band's own website. Emerson1975 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BAND per all above me Giggy UCP 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete they don't seem to have released any album or single whatsoever. SalaSkan 09:18, 12 July 2007 (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.