Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needles//Pins

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needles//Pins (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)

WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim to passage of any notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC, and not enough reliable source coverage to properly carry it. While they've released two albums with a third on the way, if you're going for "notable because their albums exist" NMUSIC requires the albums to have been on major labels or important indie labels -- so the upcoming third album on Mint Records would count as the first of the two required to pass that criterion, while the two previous albums on Mammoth Cave wouldn't count toward passing that criterion at all. And while this does cite coverage from Exclaim! and NPR's All Songs Considered, both of those sources are too short and blurbish to pull off "notable because media coverage" all by themselves -- they'd be perfectly fine within a mix of more solid sources, but neither of them is substantive enough to be the pillar of a GNG claim in an article whose only other sources are a primary source and Beatroute. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger claim of notability and more sourcing that can be provided, but this as written is not yet enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I felt like with the addition of Jesse Gander and a release on Mint Records, that they've earned a page on Wikipedia. My reasonings:

They've had articles in the Georgia Straight, Exclaim!, and Beatroute magazines/newspapers. All three are notable publications in Canada. I feel like they should meet the criteria for "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]."

-Georgia Straight article: http://www.straight.com/music/needles/pins-relates-romantic-catastrophes

-Exclaim article: http://exclaim.ca/music/article/needlespins_talk_debut_album

-BeatRoute article: http://beatroute.ca/2014/02/03/needlespins-2/

They should also meet the criteria for "5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." because of the following:

-Pretty Much Everything So Far was released on Hosehead records. Hosehead records has at least two notable artists (Banner Pilot and The White Wires).

-Their latest album is being released on Mint records. Mint Records has at least two notable artists (The Smugglers, Neko Case, Andrew W.K., and more)

Finally, for "6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses".

Jesse Gander recently joined the band. He has been apart of d.b.s and Operation Makeout. Both bands who have had released on notable Independent Record Labels (Mint Records). He's also a Record Producer that has worked on Japandroids records and Pack AD records. I feel like he should have his on Wiki page too as he has released some award winning records and has been apart of some popular Indie bands.

Also, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Do I respond by editing your post or through the TALK page?

Thank you,

Alex

Regarding criterion #1, Exclaim! is the only one of those three sources that actually counts as notability-assisting coverage. Alt-weeklies, such as The Georgia Straight or Now, can be used for supplementary sourcing of facts after WP:GNG has already been met, but cannot be bringers of GNG in and of themselves as they have no significant readerships beyond the purely local — and Beatroute isn't accepted as a strong or notability-assisting source either for the same reasons. And one notability-assisting source isn't enough to seal the deal by itself.

Regarding criterion #5, neither Hosehead nor Mammoth Cave is notable enough to count toward passage of that criterion. A record label does not get a free notability pass just for having notable artists on it — it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to get over WP:CORPDEPTH. Mint Records is sufficiently notable to count toward #5, but that covers off one album where the criterion requires two.

As for criterion #6, the fact that a member of the band was previously in another band does not automatically satisfy that criterion either. He would have to be independently notable in his own right — but band members are not automatically entitled to standalone articles just for being band members either. He would have to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, separately from the context of the band, to either qualify for his own independent BLP or have his membership in this band confer notability on the band under #6 — and even if he did, that criterion also requires two independently notable members and not just one.

Overall, criterion #1 is the one part of NMUSIC that every band always has to meet regardless of whether or not they clear any of #2 through #12. A band can clear none of the other criteria and still get an article if there's enough genuinely solid coverage about them to clear #1, and a band can claim to clear all of the other criteria but not get an article if those claims aren't supported by any reliable source coverage that properly verifies the claims as true. (Bands often try to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform by claiming more notability per NMUSIC than they actually have in reality, so the claim has to be properly sourced and cannot count as an inclusion freebie just because it's been claimed.) So the one absolutely essential criterion that has to be met here is stronger sourcing than is present so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's hard to tell what's notable and what's just a supplementary source (especially regarding the Georgia Straight. I thought they'd be better than Exclaim!). I'll keep an eye out for better sources and maybe in the future (perhaps with the release of another record on Mint), they will have earned a Wiki page. Thanks. AlexMichal (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (PST)

Fwiw, I don't agree with @Bearcat: about major weeklies like The Georgia Straight or Now not contributing to WP:GNG -- is that stated somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they're subject to the same problems as community weeklies like Toronto's Gleaners and Montreal's The Suburban: they often cover topics of purely hyperlocal interest — an unsigned local band who are playing their first-ever show at Lee's Palace on Saturday, a restaurateur who just opened a kale chip food truck in the Plateau, the president of the "Save the Trees in Stanley Park" committee, etc. — who haven't necessarily achieved anything that would make them a topic of encyclopedic interest. So if there's a strong and solid range of media coverage available, then papers like Now or The Georgia Straight are allowed to be in the mix, but if you're going for "passes GNG because media coverage exists", The Georgia Straight can't be a load-bearing pillar of that claim as very nearly the best source that's actually on offer.

Just for a concrete example of what I mean: if a playwright wins the GG for English drama for her fourth play, and thus graduates to a more solid range of broad coverage, then as long as the article is actually citing some of that broader range of coverage you are allowed to use The Georgia Straight as supplementary sourcing for the names of the three plays she wrote when she was just an emerging local playwright on the Vancouver scene. But what you can't do is use that early Georgia Straight coverage as core support for a WP:TOOSOON article about her while she's just an emerging local playwright who hasn't won a national award yet — it can't carry "notable just because media coverage exists" if it's all (or almost all) of the coverage that actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response. I just don't agree, in all cases. I know The Suburban well and there's a world of difference between it and, say, a major weekly like Now. Or Village Voice for that matter. And of course, the editorial staff on almost all Canadian daily broadsheets are no less locally focused. Anyway, I don't intend to !vote in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Bearcat: has amply covered the issues with the sources but the bottom line is WP:TOOSOON. Not enough significant WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- just a fan page; non notable per wiki standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2017 (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.