Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone (Austrian band)

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 Consensus to delete The outcome of this discussion seems to be that the current reliable sources are not sufficient. The article can be recreated if new sources are found the demonstrate notability beyond what is available now. Chillum 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cornerstone (Austrian band)

Cornerstone (Austrian band) (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)

NN Austrian band - existence is not notability. Charted one charity single for one week in 16 years. Not a major act, not a major label, fulfills no other criteria of WP:BAND despite a sixteen-year career. This was discussed here prior to PROD, as one chart on one song (apparently due to charity) was possibly not within the spirit of "meeting the criteria for an article." WP:BEFORE indicated no major sources. Endorsed prod was removed (and an extensive copyedit undone) by the article author, who has a COI (claimed he personally created band album artwork that was removed for licensing issues). The article creator is also an SPA, not having edited anything besides articles related to this band. The author also created move requests on the Cornerstone dab page [1] and Cornerstone [2] contrary to policy. Sources are not RS. "Rock Realms Magazine" is a website run by one guy. ATOM Records is a non-notable indie label. The article is full of puffery - the festivals they played at aren't verifiable, and had likely hundreds of acts - this band was not main stage. The "biggest British rock zines" are not "fireworks" and "Powerplay" but NME and the like. Awards a film wins do not contribute to notability of the bands on the soundtrack when the award is not for the soundtrack, not for labels that release albums by the bands on the soundtrack. MSJapan (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:

“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.”

Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources (Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band.

“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.

Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks.

“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”

Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours.. I refered to one example source (Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band

“10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. “

Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.

“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”

Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3 and “Radio Wien Example playlists delivered and refered, too.

Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes. User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) User:Morrissey1976 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

• Keep, appears to meet WP:MUSIC #2 at least. I concur that that criteria is extremely problematic and sets the bar a lot lower than I'd like, but that's the policy that community consensus came up with. Arguably also meets WP:MUSIC #4 to make the whole thing moot. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

• Weak Keep Reduce to a stub I agree that the article appears puffed up and that the one charting single is meagre. However, it does meet WP:MUSIC, tenuously. If there is a CoI issue with the editor then that really needs to be dealt with elsewhere. The bickering injected here does not help either argument. Karst (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. I berought it here because there was going to be an editwar otherwise, but someone might need to explain to me how Morrissey's reply to the notability discussion regarding the dab changes Of course I did this, to get more recognition for my site... isn't a problem. MSJapan (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• That is a problem. However, trying to take an objective point of view and looking at the sources and the requirements it appears to pass, just about. As dubious as that chart position is. However, if there is an indication that the band or label initiated the creation of the page then there is a CoI issue. There obviously is another forum for that and an admin should be looking at that.Karst (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is simply: I've CREATED the site. It was a lot of work to do all the research and so on, so I want it to be found easily. Because one guy hates the band, and wants to remove all the content (+related contend) it was a lot of more work now. Morrissey1976 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)

• Taking it personal doesn't help and please do remember you do not WP:OWN the page. As editors, we all have pages that we create which will be deleted or merged at some point. It is part of what Wikipedia is (and isn't). It is constantly evolving. That's what this discussion is about, to establish the merit of this article. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and avoid WP:Wikistress.Karst (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Does appear to just barely pass WP:MUSIC. May not pass WP:MUSIC. I thought ATOM Records was a major label, but it's not. Yes, there's an WP:SPA problem, a WP:COI problem, and a WP:OWN problem. There's a discussion at WP:AN/I as well. I took some of the promotional language out of the article to help deal with those issues. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly meeting one criterion of WP:BAND is not a slam-dunk for inclusion; the guideline says the criteria may (not necessarily do) demonstrate notability. There's a pattern of promotion here which is incompatible with an encyclopedia. Miniapolis 22:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Request: I see several separate AfDs here. There is this plus the ones on the albums. Can we not merge them all, or is it too late now that they have all started? We don't want to risk a nonsensical outcome where, say, the band gets deleted but the albums get kept. I'll come back here an !vote in a bit, once I have worked out what is going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or, as an alternative, reduce to a stub. This is deeply unimpressive. The intention is unashamedly promotional and clearly written by an insider, judging by the detailed but substantially unreferenced history. When I see "references" that claim to be one thing but actually point at the band's own website I wonder where the line between "accentuating the positive" and misleading the reader is. The film soundtrack is unimpressive as the film itself is of questionable notability and so it is attempting to inherit a shred of notability from something that, at best, only has a little of its own. One top 50 single in one country for one week? Yes, that is something. Not much, but at least it is something real. Does that get you an article? I feel probably not, certainly not a nest of promotional articles like this anyway. It is hard to know precisely how notable the band really are but even if they are just about notable a case could be made to junk most, if not all, of what we have here and make a nice, neutral, stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree on this. Reduce it all to a stub along the lines of this article. Karst (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite Article could be claimed to have a COI, however this is irrelevant so long as it does not show in the text. As is, this somewhat comes through and should be toned down, with less focus on the band's achievements. Band appears to meet WP:BAND (as stated, whether for 1 week or a year, it still achieved a chart single) with (some) reliable sources, so I see no reason to remove the page IF the author agrees to phrase it properly. --Flobberz (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the author agrees to. He can publish what he likes on his own website but he owns nothing here. His only choice is to play within the rules here or to play elsewhere. We should not worry about this either way. If the article is reduced to a stub (or slightly more than a stub) then it can be defended against inappropriate additions. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Flobberz commented on the "Somewhere in America" album AfD that the the album could meet BAND and NALBUM. I thought the comment was odd, so I looked at the user's contribs. I hate to WP:BITE, but Flobberz has less than 50 edits, has been on WP for three days, has only worked on one article (which has been sent to AfD), and already has several notability guideline discussion items on his talk page related to said article. His last comment on such is "Wikipedia simply has unrealistic standards." So I don't think he yet has the understanding necessary to be participating in AfDs. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply toMSJapan The problem, that we have here is, that you have a strong COI regarding the article Cornerstone and with this whole AFD, that you have started. I already wondered, why someone put such strong efforts into the deletion process of a - everyone excuse me this term here now - f***g band. But this make sense: reading all your other articles, except one, all of them are about Freemasonry, the term 'Cornerstone' has a strong meaning there (Which I wasn't aware of, when I wrote the article). I suppose, you are an expert and/or a part of this communion, and furthermore you want to remove the article either out of your own interest, or someone told you to do so. Strong COI. Btw., I found it quite interesting, how you judge about other people, as clearly seeable in your reply toFlobberz, whose suggestion was really calm and reasonable. May is suggest, that you'll do that within the organisations, you are part of outside of WP, not here? Thank you. Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2015 (CET+1)

• Suggestion Any German speakers here might want to look at the German language version of the article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_%28%C3%B6sterreichische_Band%29. It has been edited heavily by the author here but it did exist before that. If there is good content there then they may want to bring it here. If there is bad content there then they may want to help deal with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  There already is a discussion about it on the de.wiki talk page, I don't believe it has gone to AfD there. Let's concentrate on the en.wiki version here. Karst (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I followed the discussion here for a while, and except MSJapan, who has a COI with this article and the deletion discussion (I don't want to point this out again, read my comment before, if you are interested), most of the comments and suggestions are quite reasonable. I had some good advice, and because I wrote the article, because the band asked me to do so (they are not that familiar with WP) and I know one of the bandmembers, refered to the the WP-guidelines this is a COI, which I wasn't aware of. Ok... granted. Altough I not fully agree to DanielRigal opionion, I guess, his suggestion, to reduce the article to a stub (or slightly more) or re-write it, as another user suggested, sounds like a good compromise. Looking at other bands with a similar standing than Cornerstone, we can arguable discucss about one or another term, if it's "promotional" or not, but I've tried to stay objective, and I don't see more or less "promotional language" than on other pages. Which bring us to the sources and references: most of the band-stuff happened in printed magazines, Radio and TV (and of course on some websites, but most of them tend to change their URL's or site-organisaions from time to time. F.e. BBC Radio has a "Listen Again" section, but this will be removed after 30 days... and then? Source gone - problem!), so I prefer to use PDF's or similar for referencing, at least for the articles I write outside of WP. How will you "refer", if a song is in rotation at a radiostation, except uploading hundred of playlists? Except some die-hard fans, who collect any snippet of the band (and put them maybe in the Net, so I could refer to), it's hard to find collections of articles, interviews or reviews about the band and it's albums except at the band's website. I guess, every rockfan knows Classic Rock (magazine), and UK-based rockfans probably know "Powerplay" and "Fireworks", so this was the reason I've refered to those sources. But of course every other source is possible, a collection of around 150 press-snippets of the band could be founnd here . Everyone is welcome to improve or remove terms from the article, that are not suitable - I can't do it directly, because I have a COI. Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (CET+1)

• As there clearly is a CoI issue concerning this page, you should refrain from editing it further and indicate any requests/issues on the Talk page. That generally is the procedure. List any material there that might be useful and point to any errors or omissions. Also, inform the management of the band that this is what is happening, to avoid possible legal issues. Karst (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Just wanted to point out that, from a sourcing standpoint, what is claimed to be "Classic Rock Magazine" is not; it is in fact just a scan of a CD sleeve from Classic Rock AOR issue 5, which means it's not the same magazine. According to the article, Classic Rock hit issue 150 five years ago, and doesn't apparently come with CDs included. Said magazine isn't even mentioned in the CR article, and the logo is different, so I don't even know if they publish it. MSJapan (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  It indeed appears to be some sort of sleeve with the reproduction of a review? Classic Rock AOR is a spin-off of Classic Rock magazine, see here and here. Karst (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  It's a 15-track disc, and there's only one track listed, so maybe it's a CD sleeve, and the other piece is a booklet with track-by-track reviews? I have no idea, but it violates WP:COPYLINKS (so it might need to go anyway) and is a pretty weak review. I'd drop it because the whole point of the addition is to cherry-pick two band names, but I'll leave it for now. It is indeed a spin-off of CR, so I've simply updated the reference. I also went through and basically re-did my initial copyedit and documented every change on the talk page. A lot of it is simply inflated (basically that the media outlets, awards, etc, are a lot bigger than they really are) and TBH, the de-wiki folks need to be made aware of the fact. I've documented several substantial errors in source claims on the talk page. MSJapan (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Left a message on the de.wiki pointing to this page. It appears to me that the consensus here is that the page needs to be reduced to a stub. Karst (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  It's just about there now. However, the only notability they have is that one-week charting on the charity single, and the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that the charity tie-in was what sold the single (which was a cover of a popular song, to boot). Otherwise, the band has no press that one would expect of a band that meets GNG or BAND. It was an excellent marketing ploy, but put in perspective, this is the situation: we have a band that's been around for 16 or 17 years, has never been on a major label, and still plays the club circuit despite releasing three albums (none of which charted). Their "US tour" wasn't documented by anyone besides their record label's local paper, and they're second- or third-level billing on all of the festivals they've played, amongst a whole group of other bands no one seems to have heard of either. They may meet the technical requirements of one criterion of WP:BAND, but that's really pretty weak for a band that's been around since 1998. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  I've removed all the puffery and clarified every source as best I can. I looked up the AOR mag on Amazon, and it's a 132 page issue that I can't tell if Cornerstone is even mentioned in (though I would guess not), so I've made sure to clarify that this is all about the CD included. I've documented every removal I have made on the article on the talk page. BAND specifically excludes promo material from establishing notability. I can't document any of their history independently or otherwise. Their film soundtrack contribution isn't verifiable - the film's own website doesn't even list it, and no film reviewer mentions it. The statement about radio airplay is so subjective as to be unverifiable, so I removed it. In the end, we have a band that, in 16 years, had an indie charity single chart in Austria for a week (as a digital download), and that is the absolute extent of the criteria that they meet. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:NBAND # 2, had a charting single in Austria's official charts, and there are enough other sources to comply with the general coverage requirement. WP:AfD is not cleanup, content decisions must be discussed at the pertaining talk page. Kraxler (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - I did discuss those edits at the talk page. However, as the article author gave sources here intended to meet particular guidelines, it was necessary to discuss them here as part of the discussion. Most particularly that those sources, under scrutiny, were exaggerated in either scope or content. Also, as interviews with the band are specifically excluded from meeting notability in NBAND #1, I'd be interested to know (on the talk page) what you've found that establishes notability rather than mere existence. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The charting single establishes notability, as pointed out above, the coverage is only needed to have secondary source info for writing an article. Kraxler (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to rehash, but meeting a single criterion does not mean an article is guaranteed (and the guidelines say this). That means we're going to have a Wikipedia article on a band that charted one single for one week in sixteen years, and meets no other criteria of WP:NBAND whatsoever? Now, I have no problem with an article on the single (and there is one), but that doesn't have to (nor is it required to) stretch to covering the artist per WP:NSONGS. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NBAND says "Musicians or ensembles...may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria...". I suggest you respect other people's opinions. You nominated this for deletion, ok, and now the voters are telling you what they think about it. That the band passes the #2 criterion is undisputable. Really no need to rehash it, and I urge you really not to rehash it. The closer of this discussion will take into account all !votes, and all attempts at WP:BLUDGEONing. Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• delete I worked this over and mostly stubified it today. There are really only 3 sources on this group. All are driven by local issues. As someone mentioned, their label's local paper did a piece on their US tour; a newspaper in Nottingham did a piece on them due a benefit concert they gave for a cystic fibrosis center there that is a big local deal, and there was a trademark spat with a UK band that got a bit of writeup in a local paper where a festival was going to take place where they were going to play. So super marginal/local with respect to sufficient independent, substantial sources to meet NOTABILITY. Add to that the PROMO campaign by the band's representative, and that tips me over to delete - we are not here to be used for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply Just for the records. I'm not "a band's representative". As I clearly pointed out, the band asked me, to edit their german article, that already existed, and write it for the English section. I'm no periodical writer on WP, but work in scientific fields (educational topics, etc.). Yes, the remaining sources are "local", because you obviously removed the other sources Austrian Press Agency etc., the touring with former ALAN PARSONS/ FLYING PICKETS singer Gary Howard, the contribution to the film, for that Cornerstone contributed songs for the soundtrack (and which article your friend User MSJapan tries to delete as well, just to mention that). I really don't know, how many hours a day this fellow spends, for trying to remove the Cornerstone-article, because he don't like it or he can't accept other opinions. Next step will be probably, that the Officela Austrian Charts "are a fake". Of course! I don't see a "promotional meaning" here, WP should be an encyclopedia , where people could get most informations about certain topics fast. What I learned here meanwhile about the WP-rules for band, that I've read of course, before I wrote the article, that a collection of more than 150 press-articles is worthless, sources like the Austrian Press Agency are "not relieable" and a film, that won five awards, is "not noteable". Ok, that frustrating, and really not my understanding of scientific working, that I do for around 10 years now (outside of WP). Morrissey1976 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to comment here by Jytdog, although I do not know the reliability of the various sources in this field. I imagine I was asked to comment on whether technically meeting a list of requirements such as at NMUSIC is sufficient, because this point sometimes comes up with the somewhat analogous WP:PROF. . I think that it usually is, but not always, for we go by our judgment of the intent and spirit of the rules. Therefore, it is a matter of judgment,and we are entitled to form it for the circumstances of an individual article.

In particular, Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. I gather that the question of promotionalism and borderline notability is the specific point here DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I want to be thorough even if it doesn't matter at this juncture, so I researched a claim made earlier. The claim that the band is notable because it meets WP:BAND criterion 10 is supported by the statement that the film the band contributed music to (Little Alien) won an editing award at the Los Angeles Film Festival and is therefore notable. That is incorrect. According to the awards section of the article (and this award list for 2015), the LA Film Festival doesn't give technical awards for editing. Moreover, according to the film lineup for the 2010 LA Film Fest from the LA Times, Little Alien wasn't there. So I think that the "Los Angeles International Film Festival" claimed on the film's page is exactly that (not that I can find a source for it), and not the more famous one. MSJapan (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply Ok, obviously the link to the LA Film Fest of the award for THE EDITING for 2010 is gone, that's a general problem of Links. But of course there are other sources, for example here [3]. The Austrian Cultural Forum is part of the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, but of course you'll suppose in your next reply, that this official goverment office of Austrian invited, constructed that and are "not right". Your problem is, that NO ONE is right, except you, in your opionion. Basically copied that from the german WP, simply added some info to the English WP, that was missing, which is in my opinion the meaning of WP. Obviously your personal meaning of WP, is to construct, invite or spin sources and references, so you "are right" and you are "smarter" than other people. I really don't know, how many hours your spending daily, just because you obviously can't stand, that you obviously "not right" or accept other opinions. "Gary Howard has never a worked with Alan Parsons". "Little Alien was not there at the LA Film Fest 2010". "Cornerstone was in the Charts because of the Charity, not because of the quality of their song". I haven't read such a heap of bullshit in all the years of scientific working, that you wrote here. If someone's shows you, that you'e not right, you spin every word around. That's exhausting, boring and - honestly - annoying. Get a life, dude! Talking to you is like talking to a robot or a trained ape... regardlessly, what someone will write or reply, you'll run your program. So keep going forward delete articles from WP, which is obvisouly your hobby and/or makes you happy. I'll stop discussing from here on, that's senseless. Ah, and don't forget to copy EVERY WORD I WROTE HERE in your "Users complaint", that you've already started, because an editor has the guts, to have another opinion than you. Case closed. Morrissey1976 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Morrissey1976, if you want to get the article deleted, making comments such as the above is the way to do it. I remind you of WP:NPA. DGG ( talk ) 12:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Stub or Delete Per Jytdog. Looked at the sources, and agree with his assessments. Darx9url (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Just not enough coverage in RS to make them notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh, what a mess... still, when the dust is settled, it looks like we have a group that's only slightly notable, and that's for a)a nasty intellectual copyright dispute and b)a briefly charting cover version of an 80s tune. Since we already have an article for their version of the song, the group really doesn't merit an article in my view. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - The key to issue is that while this band has a single song which briefly charted, this is their only claim to fame. Simply not enough to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 27 August 2015 (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.