Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Worship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Victory (church)#Victory Worship. This is a compromise solution that could very well be challenged. But I don't think relisting will help as there has already been good participation in this deletion discussion and the sides are well-articulated. The redirect target actually has more content than the article did. I think this is the best resolution in a discussion between those seeking to Delete the article and those who believe the article should be Kept. For those editors who are insistent that any page created by a sockpuppet should be deleted, you can take your argument to WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Worship[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Victory Worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I draftified it and it was recreated, and it's still a non-notable band. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked at WP:NMUSIC at the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and I saw #3, "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." In the "discography" section of this article, the first blue link is to Radical Love (album). That article states, in its second sentence, "In February 2015, the album was certified gold by the Philippine Association of the Record Industry for sales of more than 7,500 units". A reference to that statement was included in that article. The URL in that citation failed to load, showing a bunch of broken links and images. I had to dig a bit through archive.org, and I found [this] list, which shows a gold certification date of February 11, 2015. On its face, I am willing to consider pari.com.ph a reliable source, so I end up on the keep side. I am willing to consider arguments that this is not a reliable source, and other arguments and will be watching this discussion for additional arguments for and against its deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The band also has two album articles that are in somewhat better shape than their main article, which the nominator should have noticed. The band's article needs expansion from reliable sources in the Philippines, but they are confirmed to have two successful albums and a notable award nomination in their country. They have been covered in the Philippine Star, one of that country's largest newspapers, though it looks like references in the album articles are dead because the newspaper changed its web domain. Here is one replacement: [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as gold record recioient and reliable sources coverage in Philipine Star as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as having gold record per above --Lenticel (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-draftify These promotional articles are becoming time consuming to address and it shouldn't be left up to volunteer editors to polish up mass produced articles. These "drafts" shouldn't be left in main space. Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a general policy comment rather than a vote on the notability of Victory Worship. I disagree with the proposed process as well. A messy article on something notable can be addressed with edit tags and it doesn't take too long to remove blatantly promotional prose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That link isn't a "note", it's a link to a category of blocked suspected sockpuppets. It's not clear what the point of including it here is. If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet, SPI is thataway. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article is a sock and the sock master is banned so it can be speedily deleted under G5. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously? Only 7,500 units need sold to qualify for a Gold Record per Philippines industry criteria? It's time there is a hard look at wikipedia's music notability criteria using a gold record as a blanket qualification for notability. US/British criteria is 500,000 units. To put 7,500 on a level par with that is ridiculous. I won't weigh in on a keep or delete, but am disappointed in editors who automatically vote keep base on the gold record criteria without considering it with a critical mind. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and as the population of the Philippines is higher than the UK population, that disparity is even more remarkable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Philippines is a poor country, and music piracy is very rampant. Most musicians make money by touring (I suppose the same is true for almost all countries, but more so in the Philippines). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if not G5 speedy delete. This is not ready for mainspace. The certified gold is a bit of nonsense. Per WP:NMUSIC, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The operative word is may. There is no indication of notability beyond the sale of 7,500 units. This is not presumed notability. I would suggest draftify, but as the page creator is a banned sock, that would just be backdoor deletion I think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sales number seems low, but it hit a Gold record in the Philippines, seems to be notable as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should merge or just redirect to Victory (church) which already has an arguably better section about the band. —siroχo 08:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all content on this page is already on that one, so there is nothing to merge. I agree that redirect is sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, when we start to get into the pattern of doing anything other than deleting for articles created by puppets, it encourages them to do sock puppet, because they can count on the G5 CSD eligible getting re-direct if it fails a full "keep". To discourage promotional and PR activity, delete should be connsidered... Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, a redirect makes it somewhat less likely that the article is created again, and also makes it easier for any editor to revert if it is. —siroχo 21:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always delete and salt. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right, but personally, I prefer such options only when the problem is persistent, as it's less in the spirit of WP:5P3. I would hope this issue would end here, and if in a year or two a new editor comes along and are able to write a good article that meets GNG, they can. —siroχo 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per siroxo. Page was created by indef-blocked suspected sockpuppet, and has no substantial edits by any other user, so G5 is appropriate (but since we're already here, no particular reason to speedy it IMO). On the general notability question, I don't think we need to take NMUSIC quite so rigidly as has been suggested above. Guidelines are meant to have reasonable exceptions, and the Philippine standard for gold records seems like such an exception. At the moment the church article actually does a better job of covering the band than the band article, so we will better serve our readers by consolidating coverage there until there is enough verified information to support a split. -- Visviva (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per above arguments, especially that it had a Gold record. SBKSPP (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, better yet, redirect. I previously wrote I wouldn't vote, but I will now mostly because the previous comment cites "above arguments," but apparently did not read them, as it was previously pointed out that a gold record in the Philippines is only 7,500 units! The gold record seems to be the majority reasoning for the keep votes as if that is unimpeachable criteria, but the guidelines specify only that it may indicate notability. Meeting the Philippine's ridiculously low threshold for a gold record is not enough, and the routine/half-promotional press coverage for this musical project all fall under the umbrella of this Mega-church's oversight and notability. Like a few other editors, I'm also troubled by the sock puppetry in it's creation. Redirect to that church's page is fine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per Siroxo and Visviva. -Ian Lopez @ 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Created by now-blocked suspected sockpuppet of an editor permanently banned from English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:G5 per Maile66. Banned means banned. No objection to a fresh creation from scratch by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Maile66 and S Marshall: would you be fine with Deletion and then the creation of a Redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship? I think that would deal with the banned editor issue and also keep the material for our readers.--Lenticel (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would go along with that. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC
RecycledPixels makes a valid point below. Deletion is fine. But I'm not sure how a redirect would work, if you just deleted the article. But nevertheless, you would need to create the Worship part in your own words, without using a redirect pointing to a creation by a banned editor. — Maile (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't asked, perhaps because I'm a KEEP above, but if you want to G5 the article because it was created by a banned editor, I won't object, although it seems like pointless theater to me, but it should be clear that there would be no problem with another editor rewriting the article from scratch. The subject matter of the article, despite the article's horrible current state, meets WP:NMUSIC, and so I still oppose any AFD deletion that would result in editors saying in the future, "you can't make an article about this, it was already brought to AFD and deleted." RecycledPixels (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been rewritten from scratch. No need to G5. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So G5 still applies because the page creator remains the banned sock. Other deletions reasons also still pertain. The only evidence of notability here is that they shifted 7,500 units. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G5 doesn't apply if there have been major edits by non sock editors which an admin would determine, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major edit does not really describe this. It has gained a sentence and lost the 4 band members. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (G5) as created by a banned user with no substantial edits by others. Also want to object to the idea that being certified gold = notability. As NMUSIC says, meeting such a criteria means it may be notable. In this case, it just means the unit sold 20,000 units. Folks in the US may be used to gold meaning half a million in sales, which are the sort of numbers likely to attract press attention. 20,000 maybe a lot for a smaller country, but doesn't necessarily translate to the kind of sourcing we're looking for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to this here because the issue has been raised multiple times, not singling you out. I think the guideline in NMUSIC is sound. It's not a policy, it's not a black-and-white line in the sand, it's a suggestion based on a long history of debates over WP's history that if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that. Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? I say no. And I can't be bothered to do online and hard copy searches in the 20+ languages that are spoken in the Philippines to determine whether or not it's notable. The guideline exists to save us from long, pointless debates about whether such a source exists. Just accept the presumption. Does that mean that some high school garage band will have a Wikipedia article? Of course not. They still have to meet the country's sales guidelines. And according to the nation's certifying agency, only 16 albums in the country met the gold sales mark that year,[2] so arguments that the standards are too lax fail. How many albums met gold sales standards in the United States? Hint: the RIAA article for the year is 48 pages long.[3] (including singles) So this article should be a KEEP based only on that presumption of notability outlined in the NMUSIC guideline. The G5 issue is a total strawman argument. I have taken the one short sentence of prose that the banned sockpuppeter wrote, deleted it, and turned it into three completely unrelated short sentences of prose. I also nuked the list of band members because it was unsourced. There is no prose that closely resembles what the sockpuppeter wrote. This should be closed as keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that - In this case we don't have any such sources after nearly 3 weeks at AfD. It seems clear at this point that they are not coming, which reaffirms the 7,500 threshhold is way too low. You anticipate that objection with: Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? but the vast majority of the population of the Philippines do speak excellent English. English is one of two official languages of the Philippines and 92% of the population speak it. There really should be English language sources for an English titled group singing primarily in English, from a Church that holds services in English in a country that is well noted for its high levels of proficiency in English. Also, as noted above, the Philippines has a larger population than the UK, and yet the UK definition for gold is 400,000 units. 7,500 is ridiculously low. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be right about the language. I based my statement only on the fact that the infobox of Wikipedia's article on the Filipino language suggests that there are 28,000,000 native speakers of Filipino, whereas Philippine English's infobox suggests that there are 200,000 native speakers of that language in the country. According to that article, there are 52 million people in the country who speak it as a second language, vs. 82 million total speakers of Filipino, of a total population of 109 million according to Philippines, but I'm sure you're right about the 92%; one of those articles is probably wrong. And in case you were wondering, the UK's certifying agency, BPI, certified 132 gold albums in 2015. I'd post a link, but the website is garbage, but you can get to it from [4] and enter the appropriate filters. Compare with PARI's 16 albums in 2015. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-read my earlier statement and I instead of saying "where a vast majority of the population does not speak English..." I should have phrased it as "where a vast majority of the population does not use English as a native language..." I apologize for the mis-statement. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victory_Worship&oldid=1166212297"