Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar

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. Wizardman 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar

Non-notable tribute act. Fails WP:BAND. Also appears to be a WP:COI issue Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No sources provided. As the creator was User:Benatartribute, I would agree that this seems to be a conflict of interest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above comments. Subject is an nn along with creator/COI issues. It's non-notable advertising. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{hangon}}Regarding HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar, please forgive me for not fully understanding what makes this listed for deletion. Perhaps it's just a guiedlines issue? But, what speciffically makes any of the other tribute bands listed on the tribute act page any more notable than HeartBreaker to allow those pages inclusion? Is it the formatting? Unfortunately, I am new to the Wikipedia environment regarding editing and possibly need some direction on this? I came across the tribute acts pages and noticed The Iron Maidens, which is a local group with not as long a tenure in the tribute community as HeartBreaker, although definately notable, and they are incuded. But beyond The Iron Maidens are bands whos accomplishments pale in comparison to HeartBreaker. HeartBreaker IS a notable, respected and an acknowledged band of the tribute community as well as being one of the first of local tribute acts to appear in the L.A. area when the tribute phenomenon began during the late 90s, particularily with a female lead singer. That, in itself makes HeartBreaker a pioneer to the community. What other information or details do you suggest including, other that what is listed in the biography which is certainly not insignificant, in order to make this page more or as "notable" than or as any of the other other listed tribute bands by Wikipedia standards, and to gain inclusion? Please advise. I have perused some of the other acts' pages linked to the tribute acts page and see only a few with significant notability, most have even fewer accomplishments and notariety than HeartBreaker, some I've never even heard of and certainly aren't known to our local tribute community, which definately expands beyond just the L.A. area. HeartBreaker has been written about and featured in reliable sources and is known for it's tenure, quality and respected within our tribute community, particularily since we are one of the longest running tributes AND are acknowledged BY the artist to whom we pay tribute, Pat Benatar and members of her band(s). We are the only band of any kind listed in her official web pages and have been joined by significant original members of her band. This in itself lends support to the tribute act pages. The histoy of the tribute act pages specifically points to acts who are joined to play with the artists to whom they tribute and further goes on the list bands on the page. Why is it not acceptable to list HeartBreaker and a biography of information to support the tribute act pages? We may not have as much notariety as The Iron Maidens but we certainly are not insignificant and definately are more notable that some of the listed bands. HeartBreaker was featured in a televised documentary about tribute bands on a major network and has been written about and listed is major publications. As well, do a search for "Pat Benatar Tribute" on any major search engine and see who comes up in the FIRST spot. How can any of this not be notable when this is in regard to tribute bands?????? Please explain. Thank you.

HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar

Official Pat Benatar Website :Link Page

Official Pat Benatar Fan Club - Links Page

"9 On The Town" Local Channel TV 9 Tribute:Segment. Bands listed on this archive page were included in a televised documentary, fully initiated by Channel 9 and unsolisited in any way by the artists in the documentary

Unsolicited Review in OC Weekly

Benatar Tribute Band - Photos and Interview of and with original artist

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is non-notable as per WP:BAND. Can't explain it any better. The community will decide it's fate at the AfD. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) According to that it does meet the guidlines as notable. Maybe the format isn't correct yet but I'm working on it. After all I only started on it last night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. The above are quotes from the article you site. HB meets BOTH of these criteria. --Benatartribute (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't the only criteria and the "we" part of your post indicates the other issue. See WP:COI. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

COI States: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

The "interestes of Wikipedia" will remain paramount once the article is complete. That's all that is required in the final revision.

It also states: There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

This is simply a matter of editing. You have no knowledge of HB at this time so you cannot be the judge and jury. There will be reliable sources cited once the article is complete and it will remain neutral for the puposes of supporting the interestes of Wikipedia per it's suggested guidelines. I grew up with paper Encyclopaedias so I understand the concept. And, I will support the Five pillars. I really don't understand, however, why this has come so quickly under fire so early in the process and by whom? HeartBreaker has made notable accomplishments in the tribute community worthy of inclusion. Just for argument sake as with any documentary it's information in and infomation out. Likewise the neutral party observer even in a respected status can also be other than accurate and objective using verifiable sources and those often times must come from the source itself, otherwise it can be inaccurate, biased or subjective, thein can then lie the difference between fact and opinion. In a nutshell, this is all a very grey area and as the articles you site state, "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict exists." Basically, it says remain neutral and cite your sources and that should be enough said. You can't assume that every person who starts an article is there to promote their own self-interests. You must sometimes simply guide an individual to it's goal. For these purposes, that I know the rules, should be ALL that concerns you.

I don't know you people are but I think it ridiculous that you can sit in judgement of a band in a genre' you nothing about and imply that the article is for self-promotion when we have clearly been noted by KCAL-TV9, a notable source and OC Weekly also a notable source AND the original artist to whom we tribute. Just because I added the article DOES NOT mean I CANNOT add the entry. It states so above in the guidelines of COF. I think you need to go back and read the guidelines. The article is meant for it's intended purpose as an article of reference to the read. I have OTHER mediums in which to "advertise!" HB may not have as much recognition as other bands but we certainly ARE regocognized and notable and according to the guideline having the most regocnition is NOT the test.

Certainly, feel free to suggest and editing style but I see NO reason(s) to delete the article on the references you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) — Benatartribute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. First, looking at the article history, there were no sources when the first two people commented on the nomination. The article is now sourced. The issue now is with the quality of the sources: some of them are not clearly reliable, and some of the reliable sources are trivial coverage. I'm going to lean to the side of caution and say the notability hurdle of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is met, so cleanup is in order, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Benatartribute (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls well short on WP:BAND. None of the links posted above are to independent reliable sources as mentioned in WP:V and WP:RS. Let's look at the 12 criteria in WP:BAND (to be considered, it must be presented in the article and not necessarily in this discussion): #1 (subject of independent, non-trivial published works...) not in article; #2 and #3 no charted hits, no gold records; #4 (non-trivial coverage of at least one international or one national tour) no evidence of such coverage, but if there such for the 2002 Japan tour mentioned, it could apply; #5 (two or more albums on major or important indie label) no releases mentioned in article; #6 (at least one member who was part of a notable music group) Jeff Carlson doesn't quite qualify as he is most notable of being a Hanson brother; #7 (most prominent representative of a notable style) doesn't really apply as HeartBreaker is a cover band; #8 and #9 no awards apparently won and no evidence of performance in a major music competition; #10 (performed music for a work in media that is notable) no evidence of applicability here; #11 and #12 no mention of either having a recording placed in rotation for a major radio network, nor is there mention of a half hour (or longer) radio network program. If there is evidence of something in this list of criteria applying, it must be placed in the article as soon as possible to maximize the likelihood of the article being kept. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you must understand the significance of a tribute band vs a cover band to make this argument. Tribute bands DO NOT generally record records, (especially of the original type that would be considered for some of the acknowledgements you cite) some do, but there are a vastly different set of circumstances for doing so than an original artist's goal. It is not about chart-topping. Tribute bands are significant because of the phenominon (this HAS been written about and documented in the media) that has developed in the last ten years. Tribute bands are NOT cover bands. This is basically a whole new breed of musician. That this has been written about is significant, in that context and that we are still around (where many have come and gone) is significant for the reasons stated. Please see tribute acts and The Iron Maidens there is a distinction about tribute bands vs cover bands that have obviously already made way into the wiki articles here tribute acts. HeartBreaker is significant relative to the genre for the reasons stated in the article. If I need more, I suppose I will need to know how to refine it. HeartBreaker has accomplished just exactly the things a tribute band's objectives are to accomplish, including acceptance by the original artists. HeartBreaker, HAS been featured in a televised media documentary about tribute bands on KCAL-TV 9 (which, IS a reliable source...is it not?) and written about in unsolicited non-second-party reviews (as in the OC Weekly is this not reliable??) and has won a significant award in a contest relative to the tribute community and published as such. Tributes do not compete in the Grammy Awards. Perhaps we are not the MOST notable of all tributes, but we ARE notable and significant within the context of the subject and indeed recognized, respected and known within the tribute community, which in itself is notable. To our own surprise, we have a reputation that has preceeded us. For example, we were speciffically contacted by VH-1 to perform in a show about tribute bands that would have included the original artist. I noted this in the article but someone edited it out so I assumed it was not relevant. How whould VH-1 know of us were we not notable or relevant? And particularily, we are one of the pioneer tributes in the genre with details as described in the article. Perhaps you can suggest specific documentation or proof I can provide to substantiate that if it would make us more relevant to your argument? Please read some of the other discussion here before making your judgement and offer suggestions to help with refining this rather that judgements that are not completey relevant to what you are compairing, thus biting the newbie. I will tell you, that I am not an editor, I have never written an article here before so please forgive any errors or omissions due to unfamiliarity with the process on my part and I will reiterate as I have in earlier discussions that I realize this is not a forum for advertisment. I certainly do that elsewhere. Likewise, I am not a youngster simply vying for attention or pushing promotions for the benefit of my garage band. I simply noticed that tribute acts and The Iron Maidens had made their way into the information pool and tells me that this new notable encyclopedic information and as a tribute, HeartBreaker is significant. And that said, I would most appreciate help based on all the facts rather than assumptions based on that which is perhaps simply not clear enough to you. Thank you.--Benatartribute (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated what you need to save the article in the addition to the rather lengthy cut'n'paste of the last two posts, which you planted on my talk page. Put your evidence of meeting any of the criteria of WP:BAND (which is the same as WP:MUSIC) in the article itself and see if you can turn up independent documentation of the tour of Japan as otherwise the group is essentially local in nature. After all, the key question is "what distinguishes this act from the thousands of cover bands in North America, and what evidence from reliable sources show it to be verifiable per Wikipedia policies?" As I looked at it yesterday, the article showed nothing to show that the answer would be "yes", and I didn't see any significant change in this today. Note (as I said on my userpage and on WP:NOT): Wikipedia cannot be used to promote an act; instead, the act should work hard to establish its own notability (think global, not local!) so that Wikipedia could reflect it when such an article is permitted per Wikipedia policy. B.Wind (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (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.