Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab (band)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Factors Lab (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not establish notability per WP:BAND. All the article's references are either self-published, press releases, or passing notices of live performances supporting notable bands. Articles on this band were previously deleted and speedied; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab and deletion log. Muchness (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Band does meet requirement. As you've already stated there are noted press releases. The guideline states

" 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

should not be deleted. Meets guideline number 4 under tour coverage 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the link you provided on the previously deleted page,it's obvious that that page was the victim of a malicious vandalism and in my opinion should not have been deleted. But that page being deleted is irrelevant because weather they meet the notability guidelines or not a couple years ago when that other article was written, they do meet them now and there is a large amount of press especially regarding their new album and their recent work with Chris Vrenna. As well as their tour with Kmfdm. Yes they were one of 3 bands on the tour but that was a international tour that they were billed as being a part of.

should not be deleted as per number 1.on notability guidelines the statement saying their press in only about bands that supported on tour is incorrect. Our of the 22 listed press releases on their site 21 mention there name as a main part if an article. References 1,9,10,11,12,13 and 20 on their page are independent press release ONLY about human factors lab. They meet the notability guidelines 66.87.149.168 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Comment: press releases do not count towards establishing notability. The coverage regarding tours is trivial; the articles only mention the band's name and state that they're supporting. The only non-trivial coverage I can see in the article references are this news article, which reads like a brief press release reprint, and this review, which is from a site that writes promotional reviews for a fee (source). I'm not seeing any evidence of non-trivial, non-press release/promotional coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Muchness (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of previous article is irrelevant to the claim that the band does not currently meet notability guidelines. Reading over the article for deletion discussion and statements from names like "bring them down" it's obvious these were fake names created to maliciously attack the bands wiki page. Also that page was deleted in 2010. Even if someone agreed that they were not notable then. The references provided showing notability are all recent in the past couple years 66.87.149.168 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement that coverage international tours in grade a venues is not relevant to them brig notable. If they weren't notable they would be on those tours. Also the coverage is buy die of the biggest online music magazine like blabber mouth and the gauntlet. But even if that were correct. There are articles that have nothing to do with them touring. There are articles about them producing albums with Chris Vrenna of none inch nails. And about the band in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being direct support on major national tours the band has also redivided press from regen magazine. Another large online music publication regarding their own headlong tours. The first thing in the notability guidelines states press is relevant to them being notable. They had provided sources for multiple tour related and other no tour rested press releases. They meet the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that the ~~Gunatlet article~~Gauntlet article referenced above reads almost identically to the Blabbermouth article; coincidence or cribbing from a press release? I think it's obvious. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - revised link as I linked to the wrong Gauntlet article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""keep""- The gauntlet article you just linked was from oct 2011 regarding a new album. The blabber mouth article you linked claiming as identical was from 2008 and was about a tour with Mushroomhead. Totally different. Obviously NOT a press release. All it does is show that human factors lab receives lots of press coverage from different notable sources. And that they do meet notability requirements there is also an article from regen magazine listed in their sources covering the same album release. Written totally different showing its not copied from another source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for point that out. I have corrected my link above. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you yourself posted different links from different new sources should show the band obviously meets notability requirements. The links you provided were regarding one of MANY tours If that in itself isn't enough them the link you mistakenly provided as well as the regen magazine links, and the other 20+ sources should show they meet requirement 1. In the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Those were links in the article. The Gauntlet does not appear to be a reliable source. I checked this page and found this page which is an almost direct word for word copy, and credits the material to Facebook. The Gauntlet just seems to repost press release material. It's not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gauntlet is one of the largest and most reliable online news sources there is. The fact that the gauntlet ran an article on them seems to show notability almost in itself. Given their reputation it isn't uncommon for other online magazine to also run stories that te gauntlet runs. Sometimes word for word. I dot think this take away from the notability of the band though. But just to provide information here is a link to a different magazine that is covering the same topic. But not taken from the gauntlet http://regenmag.com/news/human-factors-lab-to-release-new-album-in-four-parts/66.87.149.168 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Delete. Band lacks INDEPENDENT coverage in multiple reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 20 references and examples given from INDEPENDANT media sources. How could you possible make a statement saying delete when it's so obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarding an article with second rate sources does not make a band notable. Sources are a mix of press releases, trivial mentions, concert listings, self published sources, blogs. None are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Human Factors Lab. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not meet WP:BAND; sources are press releases or passing mentions. Miniapolis 13:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this article meets WP:BAND or WP:RS. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, they meet the 1st part of guidelines with 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable,".. Just because something is covered by the press doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I don't see 1 single self published article listed, all are from independent notable news sources, on varies subjects.. its not like they were just mentioned once in a passing article.. they have been mentioned for multiple different things, at multiple times, by multiple news organizations. ... news organizations that have done stricles just based off them, because they are notable enough to be news worthy in the opinion of the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that the "subject of multple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" excludes sources which are trivial in nature. These sources just seem trivial, none are from any news organizations that I can see, save for a couple of small mentions by Orlando news sources. This alone is not sufficient enough to establish Notability. Most, if not all of these sources are secondary. None primary. Jguy _Talk^Done 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BAND UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

The Gauntet,Regen magazine,fabrika magazine,and blabber mouth are all very well established notable music related news sites. All of these have run Varies articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2013 (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.