Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Fuzz

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Fuzz

Demon Fuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND; unexplained PROD removal by article creator. Music News is the only reliable source where the band is the subject of the publication. All other sources appear to be trivial mentions. Mkdw^talk 09:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At [1] I found a scan of a November 1972 Melody Maker article about the band. Another article appeared in the January 5, 1971 issue of Beat Instrumental. A scan of it is at [2]. Both articles cover Demon Fuzz and nothing else. I was working on this article in AfC and I've pasted the material from there into the main space, so please take another look before voting. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for expanding the article. Unfortunately almost all the sources are WP:PRIMARY such as Amazon.com and only cite things such as release dates, countries, etc. As for the two sources you mentioned, they appear to be WP:Run of the mill coverage you would expect for a limited size band and still does not meet WP:NBAND. I'm going to trim down the sources. You only need one source for things like a release date than 4-5. I think the most important thing to note is that none of the albums achieved any notable success or WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their album Afreaka! was a Billboard "4-STAR" selection in June of 1971. ^[1]. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem with that source is that it's only five words long in a list of other bands with star ratings. It's considered a trivial mention and a non-notable recognition unlike other awards laid out in WP:NBAND. Also, I discovered that many of the sources were used edited content such as music forums or listings and that many of the sources are about their associated acts. I have removed them as contentious. This article really needs to find in-depth reliable and independent sources where the band in the subject of the article and not a trivial mention. Mkdw^talk 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd like to rephrase "I discovered that many of the sources were used edited content such as music forums or listings and that many of the sources are about their associated acts"? I have trouble understanding it, but I'll make a partial response.

The forum link was originally placed there by the creator of the article, not by me...unless you found more than one such link?

I did include some links to material by one of the band members. I put it under "external links" and (I thought) clearly indicated what it was. Is that what you meant by "many of the sources are about their associated acts"?

I notice you've deleted all the links I found on Amazon. I apologize for attemping to use them to support the statement that Demon Fuzz' music is sampled and used by DJs. However, I don't understand why they cannot be used to support such things as the existence of particular recordings as products, and (what should be) uncontroversial "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (quote from Wikipedia:PRIMARY) about those products such as catalog numbers, publication dates, and track listings.

I found a scan of the liner notes to Afreaka! on someone's blog, and used that to support the track listing for that album (showing how it had ordering and timing than the Janus Records version) and statement that a particular musician was credited as having performed on that album, but you deleted that reference, leaving no reference for that material. Can you explain your reasoning?

You I found a page on www.music-news.com (a domain first registered in 2010) about the band, and you seemed to consider that an acceptable source. I don't see why Melody Maker and Beat Instrumental are not. Both had national circulation in the UK, and both existed for far longer than www.music-news.com. As I said, the band was "the subject of the article and not a trivial mention" in both magazines. Are you saying that much as a street map lists all the streets in a city, magazines that specialize in music must fill themselves with articles about nearly every musician? If so, wouldn't WP:MILL apply to the www.music-news.com review as well? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. The band also released records on a major label and appeared on UK television in an era when there were only a few channels. --Michig (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added material about their appearance on BBC television. According to an out-of-print book I found snippets of online, "Demon Fuzz had been carefully selected by the News of the World" tabloid (I wasn't able to read the reason why) for an article (which I haven't found) about how the producer was offered payola to have the band on his show. He was fired before the article ran, and he later appeared in court and was fined over a payola incident involving another band, the Equals. There's a Wikipedia article about someone with a similar name to the BBC producer, but I didn't link to that because I'm not certain it's about the same person (it doesn't mention television work) and I didn't want to libel him. I don't know much about the BBC payola scandal(s). Did that News of the World story touch it all off?

I also found a book saying they played at the Phun City Festival, along with the American band MC5. Is it okay to mention other bands who played with them at a concert? I did that with their Hollywood Music Festival gig but it was deleted for being "not related to the band directly":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Fuzz&diff=536087604&oldid=536086944

Demon Fuzz is not mentioned in the Phun City or Hollywood Music Festival articles. Will it cause controversy if I insert them in the lists of performers, or would it be more proper to wait until the deletion proposal expires?

The Demon Fuzz article has a template saying that the article doesn't cite any sources. May that template be deleted immediately once citations are added, or should it only be deleted when the AfD process is finished? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question (more of a complaint, really) about that edit I mentioned above,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Fuzz&diff=536087604&oldid=536086944

It was done with the comment (I quote in full) "removing user edited source and content not related to the band directly" but deleted from the External Links section the music-news.com review of Afreaka!, the bio of the band (ostensibly) written by its leader, and an interview of the band leader. I was not using those as sources, and I feel that they are closely related to the band or its works. They may be "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Are any of these suitable for addition back to the article? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michig. Additional sources include the review Corbett, John. "Afreaka!: Demon Fuzz" Down Beat 71. 1 (Jan 2004): 18. Also a review in Thompson, Ben. "Pop: Demon Fuzz: Afreaka!", The Sunday Telegraph 8 Jan 2006: p. 36. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those. I'm having trouble finding them on the Internet. If you don't mind me asking, could you provide any quotes, or incorporate these sources in the article in a suitable way? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per rs coverage and per Michig/Paul.Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (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.