Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coctails
- 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. Evidence of notability has surfaced in the AfD and evidently convinced people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The Coctails
- The Coctails (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)
No assertion of notability. Meets none of the criteria for WP:BAND, as the "notability" of the bluelinked members is a) suspect and their articles have COI problems, and b) they're not notable for musical endeavors as required by the policy. MSJapan (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure no solid evidence of notability. Though that they got extensive coverage in Trouser Press indicates they may in fact be of note - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete The references convey existence but not notability, and the single source is just a name check. So my weak vote is based on that. However, David Gerard references extensive coverage in Trouser Press, a solid source for 80's era independent bands. Yet my search turns up only a bio entry at Trouser Press site, which like similar unsourced bios may be promotional and cannot be used to gauge notability. David Gerard where are the examples of extensive coverage? I'll gladly change my vote if these sources can be cited.ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't have them either, that's why I said "not sure" instead of "keep" ;-) Don't see how Trouser Press would be promotional. In fact, here's the book version of what I linked above. And, delving more into the dark world of paper, here we have an extensive article in CMJ New Music Monthly from 1996, and that and Trouser Press swing it to keep for me. And a CMJ New Music Monthly review and a book mention, Spin and Option just to bludgeon the point home. The present article is terrible, but given the extensive printed coverage in Trouser Press' book and in that CMJ piece, plus the fact they got a pile of print coverage at the time, I'm pretty confident they're not only article-worthy but article-feasible - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where I take issue (no pun intended) with the coverage is that it all pretty much says they never got out of the Chicago scene, and none of those sources indicates that they had any lasting effect on other bands. On a first run-through, it all still seems very WP:LOCAL. Also, some specific points: that CMJ New monthly review is a namedrop on another single, and it doesn't even make it clear we're talking about the same group - the Abramson mentioned wasn't in the band, the band never released on Telstar Records and the article indicates they had broken up in 1995, so they wouldn't be releasing new music in 1996. The "book mention" is published by Cengage, which in my experience custom prints textbook pieces for courses, so this may be SPS. Frankly, I'm skeptical of "directories" that cover thousands of acts in a few hundred pages - I'm not sure how depth can be argued there, and of the two you mention, the first one has 2300 entries, the second has 3600. I'm just not seeing the organic whole of significant ongoing coverage or influence. I'm only really seeing the one good article, and it's not really making a strong case, as it's a summation of their career - they're broken up at the end of the article. However, I will dig through again and see if anything jumps out at me as really "making it" as I would expect. The other issue is that I wanted to compare it to similar acts, but I can't; the really notable indies get a lot of coverage despite being indie, so there isn't the same type of problem. KMFDM,The New York Dolls, Sam Black Church, etc. all still resonate today. In the latter case I saw a photo of one of the guys from Alice in Chains with an SBC shirt or hoodie, and SBC just had a doc film come out about them screened in NY. I just don't see that kind of resonance being shown here, you know? MSJapan (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trouser Press bothering to have an entry in their print edition is pretty good prima facie evidence IME that a band is of enough note to cover in Wikipedia - for these purposes it counts as a specialist encyclopedia - and the articles make pretty good references. I mean, your argument is literally that you don't believe in specialist encyclopedias. Maybe you don't, but Wikipedia's taken cues from halfway reliable ones literally since it started; and Trouser Press is one of the key notable critical sources widely used across music articles in Wikipedia. For the print coverage - it was a whole other world before the Internet, and I was there; this stuff is evidence IME that this would have been a band warranting coverage at the time, and the material there is enough to write an actually good article from and evidence that more contemporary print would have been pretty much certain to exist - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, David Gerard I was there, too, my first job working for a small music scene publication called Hot Potato (don't bother googling: you'll find no evidence of it's brief existence!) which was contemporary to Trouser Press. Just so you know, the print edition of Trouser Press had folded before this band even existed, so their only connection with Trouser Press is the listing in the encyclopedia. I'm still troubled by this articles lack of references. One cannot assume based on your argument. That said, I agree with you that they likely received some sort of coverage to merit an entry in the TP guide. But what and where is it? It wasn't in Trouser Press magazine, and as MSJapan points out, the guide has over 3000 entries, indicative of a different (possibly lower?) standard of inclusion than what we deal with at wikipedia. I'm still leaning towards a weak delete until at least something of substance can be cited in the article. The sole provided reference to the zine "Pure" seems comparable to my old employer "Hot Potato", a period equivalent to a modern day blog. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd use the Trouser Press and CMJ pieces to start on recovery, for instance - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- But yours is also a reasoned assessment :-) Currently a bit borderline - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, David Gerard I was there, too, my first job working for a small music scene publication called Hot Potato (don't bother googling: you'll find no evidence of it's brief existence!) which was contemporary to Trouser Press. Just so you know, the print edition of Trouser Press had folded before this band even existed, so their only connection with Trouser Press is the listing in the encyclopedia. I'm still troubled by this articles lack of references. One cannot assume based on your argument. That said, I agree with you that they likely received some sort of coverage to merit an entry in the TP guide. But what and where is it? It wasn't in Trouser Press magazine, and as MSJapan points out, the guide has over 3000 entries, indicative of a different (possibly lower?) standard of inclusion than what we deal with at wikipedia. I'm still leaning towards a weak delete until at least something of substance can be cited in the article. The sole provided reference to the zine "Pure" seems comparable to my old employer "Hot Potato", a period equivalent to a modern day blog. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trouser Press bothering to have an entry in their print edition is pretty good prima facie evidence IME that a band is of enough note to cover in Wikipedia - for these purposes it counts as a specialist encyclopedia - and the articles make pretty good references. I mean, your argument is literally that you don't believe in specialist encyclopedias. Maybe you don't, but Wikipedia's taken cues from halfway reliable ones literally since it started; and Trouser Press is one of the key notable critical sources widely used across music articles in Wikipedia. For the print coverage - it was a whole other world before the Internet, and I was there; this stuff is evidence IME that this would have been a band warranting coverage at the time, and the material there is enough to write an actually good article from and evidence that more contemporary print would have been pretty much certain to exist - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where I take issue (no pun intended) with the coverage is that it all pretty much says they never got out of the Chicago scene, and none of those sources indicates that they had any lasting effect on other bands. On a first run-through, it all still seems very WP:LOCAL. Also, some specific points: that CMJ New monthly review is a namedrop on another single, and it doesn't even make it clear we're talking about the same group - the Abramson mentioned wasn't in the band, the band never released on Telstar Records and the article indicates they had broken up in 1995, so they wouldn't be releasing new music in 1996. The "book mention" is published by Cengage, which in my experience custom prints textbook pieces for courses, so this may be SPS. Frankly, I'm skeptical of "directories" that cover thousands of acts in a few hundred pages - I'm not sure how depth can be argued there, and of the two you mention, the first one has 2300 entries, the second has 3600. I'm just not seeing the organic whole of significant ongoing coverage or influence. I'm only really seeing the one good article, and it's not really making a strong case, as it's a summation of their career - they're broken up at the end of the article. However, I will dig through again and see if anything jumps out at me as really "making it" as I would expect. The other issue is that I wanted to compare it to similar acts, but I can't; the really notable indies get a lot of coverage despite being indie, so there isn't the same type of problem. KMFDM,The New York Dolls, Sam Black Church, etc. all still resonate today. In the latter case I saw a photo of one of the guys from Alice in Chains with an SBC shirt or hoodie, and SBC just had a doc film come out about them screened in NY. I just don't see that kind of resonance being shown here, you know? MSJapan (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't have them either, that's why I said "not sure" instead of "keep" ;-) Don't see how Trouser Press would be promotional. In fact, here's the book version of what I linked above. And, delving more into the dark world of paper, here we have an extensive article in CMJ New Music Monthly from 1996, and that and Trouser Press swing it to keep for me. And a CMJ New Music Monthly review and a book mention, Spin and Option just to bludgeon the point home. The present article is terrible, but given the extensive printed coverage in Trouser Press' book and in that CMJ piece, plus the fact they got a pile of print coverage at the time, I'm pretty confident they're not only article-worthy but article-feasible - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- To make that clear: keep based on sources I found in a WP:BEFORE - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per David Gerard; no reason a local band can't notable when it receives substantial coverage in non-local media, as shown here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Good finds by David Gerard. BigGuy88 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.