Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogma (band)

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 delete. clear consensus that article fails to meet notability guidelines and even WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC... etc. etc. JForget 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma (band)[edit]

Dogma (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that appears to have made little impact in the media, One release only (dec 2009), no awards, significant reviews, books, biographical news articles or other things I can find from reliable sources. The only link given on this, and our sister wiki's, article is the band's website. Peripitus (Talk) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7. I can't find anything that would make this notable. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but not speedy) per WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not even sure there's a such genre as "progressive ethnic metal." Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article is in a sorry state at the moment (poorly written and completely unreferenced), a google search of the band indicates some notability. For example, there's an entry of them on last.fm (a major internet-radio) http://www.last.fm/music/Dogma+(Armenian+Rock+Band) ; there's an entry on them on http://www.armenianpulse.com/artists/dogma/ ; this webpage indicates cooperation between Dogma and Jethro Tull (a world-famous band) http://www.j-tull.com/tourdates/index.html ; there's an entry about them on http://www.rocktheborders.com/directory.html . I am aware that none of these sources are PERFECT according to the strictest implementation of the notability guidelines, yet all of them combined should in my opinion be more than enough for a not-particularly-controversial article. DubZog (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Last-fm is user generated content. www.armenianpulse.com appears to be a blog review site not sure if it's of any use. Being a guest or support act doesn't indicate notability. http://www.rocktheborders.com/ questionable reliability and not significant content. If those are the best that can be found then notability is not established. --neon white talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following information is available on the www.armenianpulse.com website:
Contributing Writers: We have several independent or freelance writers working at Armenian Pulse, :including contributing writers from other sites.
Editor in Chief: Harout Kalandjian
Senior Writer: Ruth Power
Staff Writer: Elliott Hale Carrington
Contributing Writers: Paul Chaderjian, Liana Aghajanian, Vasken Aramian
as long as no-one has a justified reason to doubt this information, www.armenianpulse.com should be treated as a trustable review site, and not a "blog", as the content is provided by a variety of editors with centralized organization and control.
Also, if you carefully read Jethro Tull's website, Dogma was not a guest or support act, but rather some members of it performed together with Jethro Tull (i.e. were on stage at the same time).
Similarly, http://www.rocktheborders.com is a review site with multiple editors, so it's reliability should only be questioned if there's good cause to do so. Articles about Rock bands on wikipedia aren't in general "sensitive topics" with high potential for fraud so we shouldn't immediately assume that independent third-party sites might intentionally provide misinformation. Also, I strongly disagree with the "no significant content" claim with regards to Dogma's entry on rocktheborders. Hence, I believe, that if those are the best that can be found, notability IS established. DubZog (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability must be established not assumed. Same goes for notability. All articles on wikipedia are required to establish notability and use verifiable sources. www.rocktheborders.com only contains a single paragraph within what appears to be a directory, this isn't considered significant coverage and i see no evidence that the site is of any standing or peer reviewed, half to site isn't even complete and hasn't been updated since 2008. I'd suggest the site is likely defunct. --neon white talk 22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be serious. No wikipedia editor will have the time, or indeed a chance to follow the working-process of any newspaper or website that is used as a source of an article, so inevitably, common (and indeed the only existing) practise is to assume sources to be reliable if they LOOK to be reliable, provided there is no reason to believe in the contrary. If we chose to label an online publication with multiple centrally organized editors as "unreliable" we should also do that to the vast majority of printed journals and newspapers, and confine ourselves entirely to academic sources. However, this way wikipedia would lose a great deal (perhaps even the majority?) of its articles and stop being what it is today. Hence, using www.armenianpulse.com as the foundation, and the other listed sources as support, I believe we could do exactly what you asked for: establish the notability and verifiability of the topic. DubZog (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what is required here in order to establish notability. There is a big difference between established newspapers and peer reviewed journals and small independent review websites. --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that a media source can only be considered reliable if wikipedia editors have inside information regarding its working process unavailable to the general public? Because mind you, only scientific journals publishing primary original content are peer-reviewed as such... all other media articles are only reviewed internally within the organization, and the extent to which this is done is only fully known to people working in the organization. The only difference between established newspapers and journals, and small independent review websites is that more people know about the former than the latter. To say that as a result of that, the former are more reliable than the latter is prejudice. Please also see my comment on reliable sources later on in the discussion. DubZog (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could you possibly say NO third party sources in light of my comments about www.armenianpulse.com ? Let's go through this again... it's a site with multiple editors and an editor hierarchy system, so just as reliable as well... the vast majority of journals or newspapers. DubZog (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all irrelevant it has no reputation for music reporting. Compare it to such sources as Rolling Stone, NME, etc --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what's irrelevant is the comparison to Rolling Stone or NME. Preferring sources from the western cultural space to those from outside it is an act of introducing a systematic bias to Wikipedia, and even leaving this aside, whether a source is reliable or not does not depend on how it compares to some other sources that are available, but on the nature of the source itself ONLY. Only the very top end of the bands of the world get regularly reviewed by largely US and UK dominated "international" magazines, yet far far more are of significant national importance in other parts of the world and easily meet and surpass the general notability criteria. DubZog (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. On refs mentioned above, this from ArmenianPulse.com "ARTISTS - Submitting your upcoming events, artist profile, CD/Video releases or concerts to ArmenianPulse.com is an easy process. Best of all, it's FREE!". This from www.rocktheborders.com, "Directory section added with participating bands info". Cleary not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on reliable sources According to the reliable sources guidline, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." A poor reputation means a POOR reputation, not a lack of it. The article on www.armenianpulse.com is in no way promotional in nature. Neither is the one in the danish magazine, that we sadly have limited access to... Also, none of the sources I've suggested for Dogma are self-published. The reliable sources guidline also states "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable." www.armenianpulse.com is a mainstream news source, hence it should be considered reliable unless there is a specific reason NOT to. DubZog (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (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/Dogma_(band)&oldid=1069986798"