Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diazepunk (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diazepunk[edit]

Non-notable band Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band meet notability, as they have been magazine featured by New Music Express, a notable source regarding music, and have also been featured at the New Music Express TV Website - see here- these count as reliable 3rd party feature, and therefore, Diazepunk meet notability standards. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query (new): Do you have a link for the magazine article? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got me! You see, they appeared in a print version of NME, I know because I collect it and I have seen their piece in one of my copies (I have about 400 editions which I catalogued here.) - I will have to go back through them since I am positive they were featured this year or last. Please allow me a little time to look through them. If I find it, I will scan the article in and upload the image to Wikipedia. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not required if you don't feel like it. All I'd like to know is the issue, but I'll take your word for it that it was a non-trivial mention in NME. And really, the issue isn't that important. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdented) - OK! - It'll still mean me doing a quick search through them to find the issue number for the piece, but thank you for sparing me a full search of 100 or so magazines (some of mine are blown up to tabloid size due to my sight) :) Its a weekly publication so 52 per year... should be able to add this by tomorrow at the latest. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query:Are there other sources? WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial sources, and I feel the New Music Express sources count as a single combined source in this case. If there are, and they were added or confirmed in some way in the article, and the article made clear the band's notability, I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion nomination. As it stands now, I just don't feel it meets WP:BAND, and it has been bearing a notability tag for several months. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources available, such as a popular culture and events site for people living in Peru, LivingInPeru.com, or a major concert website where they are listed as one of the 5 biggest national bands, here, or by the peruvian kids tv network, NAPA TV, here.

Their CD's are being sold nationally by perucd.com, here, and another of their cd's, Viernes, is in that sites list of bestsellers at number 9. I don't know how much more you need, but I'm happy to go get some more stuff if you need it :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete (by nominator): In light of the information Thor Malmjursson has provided in support of Diazepunk's notability, I think it is possible that this article *might* meet the requirements of WP:BAND. I don't speak Spanish, but the article Thor Malmjursson has linked translates in Google to "five big bands together" and Babelfish says "five great national bands", which sounds to me more like a value statement than a statement supportive of notability. I just don't feel the sources Thor Malmjursson provided defeat the non-trivial mention requirement of WP:BAND. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I mistakenly labelled this nomination as the 2nd nomination. It is actually the 3rd. The article was speedy declined (looks like by the same person) twice previously. I think this article deserves a thorough vetting by the WP community. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. None of the sources graciously provided by Thor M. provide in-depth coverage, even if they are not trivial (as far as I can tell), and this certainly applies to the NME link. I found nothing beside lyrics, and the discography also does not establish notability according to WP:Band, again, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So coverage by a national TV network doesn't promote notability? NAPA TV is a major kids TV network in Peru. Its like CBBC covering Take That. Granted, not on the same scale, but coverage by a national TV network must count for something. The websites are independent, and people wouldn't be buying an album from a band they'd never heard of, would they? I refer you to article one of WP:BAND:

(1_)It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[footnotes 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

Coverage by NME, an independent music magazine, both in print and as a featured video on NME TV, imho fulfills this requirement. NAPA TV's coverage of the band, imho fulfills this requirement.

Still, the call is yours :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I read WP:BAND as require a) multiple AND b) non-trivial. I wouldn't argue that NME is non-trivial, it isn't, but I think the other sources might be (or at least there is insufficient proof that they are non-trivial), and therefore it would fail the test. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient media coverage of this band to establish notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbranum (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--The band is notable in Peru's punk-rock scene.--Jmundo (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I haven't heard of it" is thankfully not a reason for deletion. Of all the fancruft, vanity, hoax, and spam "bands" we get, youse goyse had to go an pick one that fits the WP:MUSIC Bill of Health to the hilt! This is an easy keep, because the band is super-notable. Of course, if you think that English wikipedia should not only be in English (which we all agree upon), but also only be about things in English, then go ahead an vote delete. There will go all pretense of neutrality and lack of geo-bias, but its okay. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was in good faith, so please assume as such. WP:Assume good faith The article fails to indicate notability, and the sources that have now been provided are still questionable, at least in my mind, under WP:BAND. It may very well be a notable band, but notability should be provable, not just based on the fact that some people on WP know who they are. This isn't geo-bias, I frankly don't care where this band is from, based on what I've seen, I'd vote exactly the same way. I've already made it clear that I'd change my mind if I saw something that I felt pushed it over WP:BAND, and Thor Malmjursson has gotten it pretty close with NME. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume the assumption of good faith. You can be geographically biased in good faith, one thing has very little to do with the other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After an exhaustive search, I managed to find another source, an article announcing the release of this band's first live album, on RockPERU.com. http://www.rockperu.com/noticias200606.html My reading of that article suggests that it might or might not cause the band to meet WP:BAND. My issue is that WP:BAND does not include "release information or track listings" in the definition of notability-proving works. The article appears to be mostly "release information or track listings", and therefore I still don't think it meets notability requirements in WP:BAND, however I can see how people might. Again, the band my very well be notable, and I hate to be a stickler but I have so far only heard of one source that clearly puts it past WP:BAND, the NME source, which I haven't actually seen, but have asked Thor Malmjursson to post a link if possible. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says that "the band has made a name and is now one of the most representative of the scene." --Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that as well. However, I'm not convinced that it raises that article above the level required in WP:BAND. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to c-c-c-combo break the skeptic, under-the-microscope dance, but please don't hate me if I feel kinda that if RockPeru.com where in English and MTV.com, you guys wouldn't be all skeptical and ~~shit~~ crap. I know that its all in good faith, and that you are all open-minded editors, but it is a little frustrating to see all kinds of crappy two bit marketing creations that barely meet WP:BAND be left alone, while we put this clearly notable band under the microscope because we can't be bothered to trust the Spanish-speaking editors to tell you, yeah, this shit is notable, ese. In ~~fucking~~ freaking Español Wikipedia, the article ( Diazepunk ) is nowhere near the quality as the one here, yet no one dares to raise notability, cause we know its notable, we are just too lazy (or dislike popish pseudo-skapunk as is my case) to fix it. But notability? Hells Yes. This is what I mean with geo-bias... and pointing out geo-bias is not more a loss of AGF than pointing out any other problem with a line of reasoning, so quit being defensive and start talking about the content. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's talk about the content only. We can discuss geo-bias & linguo-bias another time if you wish. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't explain myself... it is precisely geo-bias what is keeping people from seeing notability: Everyone in Peru of a certain age, and pretty much anyone who follows popish skatepunk in Latin America knows about this band its the "one that used to have the chick in the keyboards" (not rs) or gets mentioned in the the major newspapers in Peru as notable enough to be included in a tribute for Soda Stereo (who are roughly the equivalent of Radiohead in the LatAm scene - except they are mostly from the 1980s and broke up in the 1990s) here and as a vital part of the "neo punk" scene here. La Republica is like saying, well, the Washington Post. If a band gets covered by the Washington Post, do you consider it notable? Hell, wikipedia is full of bands deemed to have met WP:BAND without a single mention in the straight, mainstream, non-music press, and with much fewer reliable source sthan what has been presented now. These guys have NME and a major press organ + dominant online sources. And of course, no AfD is complete with out a google count, which is over ~~9000~~ 65000 Get it? Not my cup of tea, and I have very little in common with Peru, but meets WP:BAND, but more important, meets WP:NOTE, which is the real policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere name coverage (most of what I've seen of this band) in the Washington Post would probably not satisfy WP:BAND Especially if that coverage, like what was on RockPERU, was limited to a track listing and release notice, or just simple a name-drop or name list. Also, just because other articles have gone below the radar does not mean that this article shouldn't be properly checked when it has been nominated for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do we have as of now that are either direct claims of notability or verification, 4? 5? Let me add another one, this time a full interview from Zona Joven #36 - a major teen magazine in Peru (website 500 on me but we can reference without weblink). Had this been a Usonian or British band, would the same standard of skepticism would have applied? I understand the need for verification, but geo-bias is clouding the judgment in this case. For example ILiKETRAiNS (two sources) Pivot_(Australian_band) (three sources) etc etc etc. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one article that I would describe as a claim of notability, the others are just mentions of their name or other items below what I read as the requirements in WP:BANDS. As for whether this had been an American or British band... It wouldn't make a difference for me. I just haven't had an opportunity to look at many (really any) other band articles to see how deficient they are. I'll be making it a priority. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I hoped somebody would address some of these... Are songs by this band played regularly on the radio? If so, it would appear to pass WP:BAND #11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Have they "won or placed in a major music competition," as per WP:BAND #9? Is the label they are signed with a major national or indie label, as per WP:BAND #5? I want to make sure we are covering all the bases, because I can see this band is popular, and the article has some strong defenders, and I'd love to be able to keep it. Proof of any of these, or any other WP:BAND criteria would be greatly appreciated.

Note: I maintain the band fails WP:BAND #1. I also think it fails WP:BAND #7, as the band may have been described in one article as a prominent representative of their style, but not the prominent representative as stated in #7.

WP:BAND:A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Diazepunk meets Criteria #7, "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" as shown by the verifiable sources above. --Jmundo (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I disagree. WP:BAND says the most and the article in question says "one of the most representative of the scene." Semantics, maybe, but I don't see that article as proving WP:BAND #7. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the only source available, see all the references above.--Jmundo (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is clear and unambiguous, you just have to meet any of the criteria (be advised it is a guideline). So to answer the direct question, and I realize this should have been done before (except I dislike WP:BAND because it contradicts WP:NOTE).

This band meets WP:BAND:

1 (at least four sources),

4 (NME and local, including V via 23punk.com, THE portal for Peruvian punk),

5 ( 4 lps - Union Discos dominates the indie punk/hc/pop punk/skate scene in Peru, - even Leusemia, the oldest and most famous punk band in Peru has released through them)

7 (Local news and youth media, including the TV show Jammin', a major youth oriented pop/rock music show in Peru),

10 (inclusion in a compilation album with other notable bands in tribute to a super-notable band Soda Stereo, inclusion verified by two sources, besides primary source of publisher - in addition to FOUR other compilations on punk, including a live concert album, besides an album of their full concert, and participation on the major Rock en el Parque festival, THE rock festival in Peru, and appearance in Jammin')

11 (plays on local radio rock programing, and on TV - their videos are Borat quality, but hey!)

12 (played live in Jammin, the entire show dedicated to their live playing, videos are youtubed)

Before these are inevitably attempted to be shot down, plese remember we just need one of them under WP:BAND. On top of that, some of these have *multiple* hits. Taken as a whole, this one of the most solid WP:BAND I have seen in a long time... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all contributors: As it appears at the moment that we are not gonna get anywhere close to a resolution on this, I am going to ask for a mediator to step in and help us reach an understanding on this. This conversation is getting awfully complex and I personally think we need some help. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is getting a little complicated. I'll concur that we probably need some help. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of doubt, the guidance of WP:DGFA is clear: When in doubt, don't delete.--Jmundo (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its simple, really, the band overwhelmingly meets WP:BAND criteria, with the sources and evidence presented. Nothing too complicated. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, Mediation Not Required: I got what I wanted from Cerejota, proof of one of the WP:BAND criteria that I could agree with. #5 is satisfied as per assertion that Union Discos is dominant record house for this type of music in Peru. Excellent. I withdraw my nomination after an exhaustive discussion, because I finally see something that is clear-cut. The band meets WP:BAND. Will somebody please add a note about #5 in the discussion page for the article. Will the seconded Delete nomination from Drmies preclude a simple close due to withdrawal?Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Still disagree on #1. ;)Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... don't start! ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 27 December 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.