Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cokelogic

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. - Bobet 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cokelogic

Cokelogic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is a vanity article about a non-notable website, and is unfinished. Badly edited. Pernambuco 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[[]]

I created this page because I am a fan of cokelogic. This page not only contains relevance to an art, but a place in time with numerous references source. All facts are accurate and related to the subject matter. I ask, is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for only "popular" material? Not a record of history, but a catalog of pop culture. Exactly how many records must be sold before a band is noteworthy enough to be recognized by Wikipedia?
I submit that no violation has been committed with this page. I am not a member of the band. I am a fan making a page for one
of my favorite bands. And there is nothing in Terms of Service that that tells me I can't; in fact it encourages me to do so.
Pernambuco's argument holds no water. I will overlook the personal attack laid upon me: I will debate his AfD submission, but I will not stand to be criticized as a "bad editor". To delete this page would be to deny useful and relevant information.--Paul Dempsey 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The new website contains many resources and useful links to learn more about the bands history, and experience their sound. I think this is a fantastic article with poignant thoughts and relevant info. It would be a shame to deprive so many people of this bands richly textued sound and arrangements. --Melissa Skorupa

Please take a look at the article, Cokelogic needs a cleanup, although I prefer to delete it, that was why I nominated it. Let us see what others say, with me, my preference is deletion, and if not, then a clean up. Pernambuco 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:MUSIC is the applicable policy for bands, and this seems to fail it. In answer to the question above, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for notable, verifiable things only. Demiurge 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Soooo I took time and did some research.

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble or Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

I could not find any sources. Google did not bring anything up about this.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart

Per Billboard, they never charted with the single or album. [1]

Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country

No, they have not certified anything with their album

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources

My google search found nothing about any tours

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

They have only release one true album but non-the=less, both were self published. Coke Logic does appear on Billboard.com [2] however if we look, it is a self published title.

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such

Nope, none of the artists are notable beyone the band.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

Concidering they come from Illinois (Tinley Park and Flossmoor) they might be prominent reps in this style of music but again...need multiple independent reliable reputable published sources.

Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award

No they haven't

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

No, no mention that they have. No press coverage that they have.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

No, they have not created a theme for a network tv show or movie

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

XM Radio...maybe? Not sure because XM will play nearly anything. When you have stations on XM that will play one one single artist for 24 hours straight, I'm not sure this is what is meant to be covered by WP:MUSIC, but I am willing to conceed this point...if true and sourced.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network"

Not that I can find.

All in all, the band failed WP:MUSIC DELETE --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to satifsy WP:MUSIC or general concepts of encyclopedic notability. Edison 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  

This is outrageous. Am I actually reading that cokelogic is not noteworthy because, "they haven't won a Grammy"? The Doors never won a Grammy. Led Zeppelin never won a Grammy. Queen never won a Grammy. Should we tear them out of the history books? Madness.
And let me understand that you must now have toured internationally, as a simple inner-national tour amounts to nothing in the eyes of Wikipedia?.
And finally, I would like to point out yet another, 'editorial' in this so call fact sheet: "XM Radio...maybe? Not sure because XM will play nearly anything". Please site facts, not opinions. Suddenly we're calling in the merit of an international satellite company? It's becoming clear that this is not a matter of what is noteworthy for Wikipedia, but what people 'feel' is a popular, view 'hitting' page.
Finally, let me editorialize a little myself. I can't remember when I had a bigger laugh than when Brian posed the question, "have they created a theme for a network TV show or movie"; oh, dear lord. Are these really your points for deletion consideration? As far as I can recall, The Rolling Stones never wrote a TV theme songs and they got into Wikipedia just fine. So if you are keeping score: The Rembrandts (the band that wrote the Friends theme song), one; The Rolling Stones, zero.
Why don't we just delete that Beatles page because they never did a Mountain Dew jingle?--Paul Dempsey 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Paul, all I did was look at WP:MUSIC (Had you looked at it before making the article?). What I did was take each point from what that guidelines states and then stacked CokeLogic next to Wikipedia's standards. This is NOT personal. I enjoy their music, but they do not meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if one of the artists was a friend or relative, I still would have the opinion of Delete. Don't be upset at me for pointing out the short comings. No, the doors never created a theme, but they did have multi platinum records and were charted. They did tour internationally. Same with the Rolling stones. You are grasping at straws here. --16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. So far we have WP:MUSIC (explained above, WP:V (airplay, blogs, myspace, youtube, and web fora are not considered verifiable sources), and WP:NOTABILITY. Special nod to Paul, please read these articles; I understand that you're a fan, but...well, I like The Brown Sisters, and I like it is not a suitable inclusion criteria. --Dennisthe2 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad. This comment above is mine. --Dennisthe2 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - to clear up Paul Dempsey's confusion, think of it as a point-scoring system. You get one point for a Grammy, one point for having one or more charted hits, one point for having at least two albums on a major label, one point for major national or international tours, etc. So if you add up the scores for the Doors or the Beatles, you get at least five or six. The minimum score required for Wikipedia is one. Cokelogic scores zero. They're outta here. Xtifr _tälk 09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is alarming. The negativity from this site is beyond words. Shot and a miss for our friend Xrifr; so brave to pass judgement while hiding behind a screen name. Wikipedia has accepted pages for Paris Hilton, Ralph Wiggum and Toast. Three examples that hold only the most important of information in the great halls of this great institution. A rich man's daughter who's claim to fame is gonzo pronogrpahy, a fictional cartoon chracter (not even a main character of The Simpsons, mind you) and Toast. All of these subjects are seen fit in the Wikipedia record books, but not the musicians of Cokelogic? If this Cokelogic page does not stand, there is something inherently wrong. Both with the structure of this site and the elitist navs who pester these grounds.--Paul Dempsey 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Paris Hilton was on the cover of many woman's mags, has many articles written about her from reliable, reputable sources and has co-starred in a TV show. (has CokeLogic done any of these?) Ralph Wiggum is a part of the popular 'Simpsons' TV program. Normally, instead of creating a very large page, information on each character is seperated out into it's own article. As an asside, most Microsoft software has it's own wikipedia page because adding it to the main page would create information overload. As for Toast...well who doesn't know about toast? :) Anyway, the point is...Do the above mentions meet wikipedia standards? Paris Hilton with WP:BIO? Yes. Ralph with WP:Notability? Yes. Toast with WP:V? Yes. CokeLogic with WP:MUSIC? no. PROVE HOW THEY MEET WP:MUSIC, UPDATE THE ARTICLE BY CITING SOURCES AND MOST DELETES WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS. Sorry for the caps but this is the only way I know to capture your attention. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry Paul. The difference between cokelogic and Ralph Wiggum, Paris Hilton, and Toast is that I've heard of those three but never heard of this band before. It shows only 2840 hits on google and I could find no mention of them in any sort of verifiable source. Please see WP:SOURCE, WP:MUSIC, and WP:V regarding this article. While Wikipedia does encourage people to Ignore All Rules, this is only in the context of places where the Wikipedia policies are vague or simply fail... and while Wikipedia is not limited, it is also a place for information which can be verified. Lankybugger 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if I actually voted, but I was the person who proposed this article for Deletion, so of course, it is obvious I support a delete for these reasons ....Pernambuco 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. 2840 hits on google are enough for keeping.--MariusM 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, because Lankybugger has not heard of Cokelogic, the information is therefore insubmissable? This is your arguement? Perhaps with a place like Wikipedia you can learn about something you haven't heard of. Learn about Cokelogic. Is this not the point of the site? But no need for any new information, if Lankybugger hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist. Please counter-point this respond and sound ridiculous; I need a good laugh.--Paul Dempsey 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"It [cokelogic] shows only 2840 hits on google" -Lankybugger.
Oh, I see. It's not about research information, it's about popularity? We're not trying to make Wikipedia into a resource for information? It's just a "VH-1" style pop article catalog, waiting to for a buy out from aol or google? No. I refuse to believe that and I will stand up to this challenge. --Paul Dempsey 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Please read WP:N, WP:V and WP:MUSIC. There are well-defined standards for inclusion on Wikipedia which are applied to all articles. It's not about popularity, it's about notability, which is a subtly different concept. Demiurge 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • If you're going to quote me, it'd be nice if you did it in context. My point was not that I had not heard of this band and therefor it wasn't worthy of inclusion, but that the average person not in the underground music scene would not have heard of this band... and that they WOULD have at least a passing knowledge of who Paris Hilton is, what show Ralph Wiggum appears on, and what Toast is. They are notable simply by virtue of their immersion in popular culture. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Lankybugger 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge, I've read these before. If you actually read the debates above you'll see that you are last to point this out. I've stated before that I am a fan of the band putting up a page for Cokelogic. Now I'm being asked to be a professional investigator and pull up articles, TV apperences and the like. Since when has any page started "finished". Why do some of you add to the article. Do some research. The page should be dismissed because I don't have all the answers? Am I supose to know everything about the band?--Paul Dempsey 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I'm sorry if you're feeling picked on, but this is just one of the hundreds of articles listed for potential deletion each and every day. And this one (unlike many) was considered borderline enough to be listed for discussion first. Which means that it was posted where people who do know how to do some research are able to review it, and see if it can be salvaged. Many people (including me) browse the daily lists of articles to discuss to see what, if anything, can be salvaged. I know how to do some research on musical acts, and have helped salvage many articles, but I cannot find anything to help salvage this one. I'm sorry. [[Us
er:Xtifr|Xtifr]] _tälk 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel I've made my case very clear, despite the naysayers. I await the verdict come in on weither the page stays or not.--Paul Dempsey 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - while that's certain that you've made your case clear, we've also made ours equally clear - if this techno group is indeed notable as you insist it is, you need to stop arguing the point ad nauseam and improve the article. You have only argued with us and been generally uncivil, falling short only of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and according to the article's history, the only thing you've done to the article is create it, not improve it. If you wish the article to be kept, then you need to improve the article, and likewise, you need to stop trying to lawyer your way around with irrelevant examples as precedent for a keep, decontexted quoting, and generally being uncivil; by doing this, you aren't exactly going to win people over to your point of view. To distill this: if you want to change our minds, you need to improve the article, and stop wasting your time arguing. Unless you improve the article, my vote (for one) stands as delete. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is Pernambuco again, I am the person who listed Cokelogic for deletion, and Paul was angry with me for that, but it was nothing personal, I just gave my reasons and I wanted to hear what others think. My own opinion is unchanged until now, I still support deletion, and if it is not deleted, then at least it needs to be rewritten and improved, it is one of these two. The current article is just not very good, this is why I always thought it needed either delete or improvement. Pernambuco 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You've done fine, Pernambuco. The ball is now - and frankly, has been - in Paul's court: like I said above to him, he needs to quit arguing and fix the article if it is not to be deleted. --Dennisthe2 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you, it is normal that pages are deleted or improved, I saw this one, and I listed it for deletion. It was nothing personal against cokelogic or Paul (I do not know Paul, and I have never heard of this band cokelogic before in my life) and I want to say that this is not the first time that I am suggesting a page for deletion, however, it is the first time someone is angry about it, I am sorry, but I still feel the way that I do. Pernambuco 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am open for suggestions. I'm hearing, 'improve the page' now. I'm not sure how to improve things here on a text based article. If anyone has suggestions, I'm will listen as it's closer to keeping the page up without threat.--Paul Dempsey 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As suggested before, WP:V will tell you of the verifiability guidelines, and WP:N will tell you of the notability guidelines. WP:MUSIC in particular will apply here. Read those guidelines, and look for clues of this on the 'net. In particular, we're looking for anything - newspaper articles, for one; magazines, for another. Those are examples, and are by no means the limit - the articles I quote here will give you good guidelines of what to look for. In this case, Google is your friend - do your research.

One thing that's important to keep in mind - we are not prejudiced to a deletion. If you can get these guidelines going before the AfD here is complete, it's probably a keep; if you can't, and it gets deleted, keep up with your research, and go to deletion review to get it undeleted when you complete it. What would, however, make us prejudiced to deletion in the future (should this get deleted in the meantime) is insistent recreation of the article with a failure to follow these guidelines. In I think a good idea behind this is probably looking at the recent AfD for comedian 2 The Ranting Gryphon. (I submitted this one myself. I like the guy, and he's funny as hell, but I like it is not a suitable reason to keep something here - and he's only really that notable within the furry fandom.)

As soon as I (or someone else) can get it, there'll be an introduction to Wikipedia on your talk page, explaining what we're about, and explaining in brief the five "pillars" of Wikipedia. In the meantime, you may want to make a backup of the article just in case, and work on it in your userspace somewhere if it gets deleted.

--Dennisthe2 06:38, 2 January 2007 (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.