Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run in Red (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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run in Red (band)[edit]

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

Run in Red (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NBAND and I have been unable to find any additional coverage than the press-release-based announcement I added in this edit (uses same wording as appears on the band's website) to shore up a WP:GNG argument. The article was moved to mainspace from draft space in this state after having been rejected once. "Relevant to the Irish music industry at large" (edit summary for move) is not a criterion for having an article, and the sourcing is very poor. I've cleaned up the article as best I can, including fully identifying the sources, and they are mostly announcements of appearances. On the talk page, an editor adduced three as being good: Into the Echo (a podcast on iTunes), Joe.ie (a men's news site), and The Sharpe (a style magazine); the last is a brief summary, one of 8 in the article, and the genre and line-up are unsourced, so I do not believe this sourcing rises to the level we require to demonstrate notability. A point has now been made on the talk page about Pandora: I do not believe this is any more indicative of notability than is having got gigs. I would expect more in the way of extended reviews. I tagged the article for notability pending appearance of the band's second EP, expected later this month, and in case editors monitoring articles so tagged could find earlier reviews that I have not, but the tag has now been twice removed and the arguments have become accusations of bias, so I conclude there are no more sources and since the article was moved out of AfC without being passed by a reviewer, I believe we need to evaluate the notability issue now rather than let the article hang around as what now appears to be part of the promotion of the group. It can be easily recreated once they do garner adequate coverage in reliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be deleted because it meets 3 of the criteria for notability set out in WP:BAND
Discussion regarding non-sourcing sources. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article's subject 'Run in Red' has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

•Criteria 1 include published works in ALL forms 

•Joe.ie is indexed in wikipedia
•The sharpe has outlined the musical group as an up and coming →→independent act.

→•The wikipedia indexed Dublin South FM has covered their work.

•Criteria 9 →•Has won first, second or third in a major music competition.

•Criteria 11 →•Has been placed on pandora radio (not their streaming service) their →→privately curated National radio station.

To be indexed the musical group only needs one of the criteria, and the above is multiple reference for three of the criteria. Moonchild101 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Direct from introduction to deletion Process

What is deletion not for?

  • Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
  • Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
  • Comment. I've just discovered that the undisambiguated Run in Red was also about the band and was deleted by both Deb and Ritchie333 as an A7; the latter salted it. They and other admins will be able to discern whether this version is better sourced or substantially the same. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's certainly a lot better than the version I deleted, which had no reliable independent references. Deb (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Should Remain

The flagging editor may be working with sockpuppet accounts to initailly discredit and vandalize this article and then flag it for removal.

It appears that the flagging editor is exhibiting predatory deletion habits.

Some articles previously visited by the editor have been removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantis_(brothel)&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_J%C3%B8rgen_Lysglimt&action=edit&redlink=1 comment added by KillickK (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are getting at, KillickK. It sounds like you don't understand this process. Deb (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recieved a notice on my talk page from the flagging editor and then reviewed the contributions and history of both the flagging editor and the article Run in Red (band). It appears that the page was vandalized by freshly created accounts; at which point, and subsequently the flagging editor began requesting AfD process.

Additionally, I am conducting a further analysis of the citations as I have previously edited this page. KillickK 18:29, 13 June (UTC)

@KillickK: Make your case for why this article should be kept under our notability policies rather than casting aspersions. Both Atlantis (brothel) and Hans Jørgen Lysglimt are listed on my user page as articles to which I made considerable improvements: the former I tried damned hard to save at AfD and am still not entirely sure the decision to delete it was not unduly influenced by arguments rooted in the squick factor; the latter was summarily deleted because a banned editor created it, which is a shame. Look again at the history of this article: I came in reverting vandalism and stayed trying to patch up an effort clearly by enthusiastic but inexperienced editors; however, we can't have articles on non-notable bands. If someone can find the needed sources to show they are notable, great. I haven't been able to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source is notable enough for a Wikipedia article doesn't mean everything published by that source is valid. The Hot Press sources are literally nothing more than gig listings, as indeed are most of the citations in the article at present. The podcast on Dublin South FM seems to be unavailable now (as does the Pandora broadcast), but in any case, "local radio station plays local band" is nothing out of the ordinary. The IMRO article is a press release put out by the band's label or management. The only independent sources that actually tell you something about the band and look like they might pass RS are the ones from Joe and The Sharpe – the Joe article is just a "band of the day" job, and it's less impressive when you realise that there have been over 600 musical acts featured so far in the series. Richard3120 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 It also doesn't mean that is should be deleted. What is the quota of mentions to be notable? This band exists, and has broken the glass barrier of recognition amongnst its peers; how then, can you say that is not notable.

The performance listings are used to verify that the band is physically going out an performing in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the US; and is used as a supplement and not to justify notability. If you went through wikipedia and removed all such citations you would have a significantly sparse volume of work.

It also appears that you don't fully understand how pandora works, they curate radio that is broadcast live on demand.

This is not a debate on whether a source is impressive to an editors opinion; that comment you have made shows uninformed bias, with out explanation or enlightenment.(talk) 9:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"What is the quota of mentions to be notable?" According to WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have already explained above that there are only two independent sources that cover the subject in depth on the article, and that I'm not sure one of them, The Sharpe, constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
"This band ... has broken the glass barrier of recognition amongst its peers" - that's a completely unverifiable statement.
"The performance listings are used to verify that the band is physically going out and performing ... If you went through wikipedia and removed all such citations you would have a significantly sparse volume of work" - correct, and that's why we don't have articles for every band or musician who has ever played live, it's part of their job and doesn't make them more notable than every other musical act who does the same thing. In fact very few articles on Wikipedia for musical acts contain concert listings.
"It also appears that you don't fully understand how pandora works" - it's irrelevant whether or not I understand how Pandora works, the point is the link to Pandora is dead and there is no way of verifying the claim that they have been played on Pandora... you're asking us to take your word for it.
"This is not a debate on whether a source is impressive to an editors opinion; that comment you have made shows uninformed bias" - well, actually, a source has to be "impressive" enough to make sure WP:V and WP:GNG are met. There's no evidence of criterion 9 of WP:BAND being met, and no verifiable proof of criterion 11. And criterion 1 is dependent on the sources from Joe and The Sharpe both being considered reliable sources and demonstrating the band's notability. Editors like myself and others voting "delete" are doing so simply by objectively evaluating the band against these criteria, not because they have any particular bias against them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that the article fails WP:NBAND for the reasons stated by the nominator. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. Sure, the band sound great, have played many shows and have an album about to be released ([1]), but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable sources that shows how the band meets the Wikipedia general notability guideline. No reviews, no band profiles, nothing. Maybe this is just a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. — sparklism hey! 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree — sparklism. Clearly the group have been reviewed on Joe.ie. This is an indexed and verified site in Ireland that you are classifying as irrelevant. The group have also been profiled on several independent Irish music organizations (see garageland and gigonometry). Please note that while this may not interest you, you can not use this as a guideline in making judgement on whether to include or delete an article. Book burning because of ignorance is a slippery slope. Moonchild101 (talk) 9:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBAND. No need for Moonchild101 to respond to my !vote, simply respect it without comment. Spleodrach (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respect your right to 'vote' Spleodrach; but this isn't a voting aye or ney scenario; therefore, your 'Fails' WP:NBAND is baseless because the musical group fulfills three of the criteria set out in WP:BAND when it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria. I am certain the admin will note this. Moonchild101 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I asked you respectfully not to comment, but you did by repeating yet again what you or your socks (Schlossbergfes/Dafteire/KillickK) have already said. Leave it out! Spleodrach (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KillickK that this page should remain. It has set a bar being reviewed by the mens journal. This article should remain; in Ireland (Eire) Joe.ie is a substantial journal with a large diverse editorial base and readership. dafteire signed 14:23, 14 June 2018 UTC

Personally I am happy to accept Joe as a reliable source. My query is whether the article in question, an ongoing series whose entire point is to highlight every non-notable act in Ireland, confers more notability on this band than the other 600+ acts the series has also featured. But even if we accept the Joe article as valid, WP:GNG still requires at least one more in-depth article from a publication regarded as reputable by Wikipedia standards. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a general rule of thumb, if you have to scramble around for sources and can’t easily pull stuff from Rolling Stone, Billboard and The Guardian, there’s no need to have an article here. More to the point, some of my music has appeared in local press and I get royalty statements every now and then; yet somehow I resist the urge to stomp my foot and cry because I don’t have a Wikipedia article on myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an absolute dearth of reliable sources. This is wholly unsatisfactory from the perspective of passing either the most basic requirements of general notability or the specific criteria at WP:NBAND. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain I think this article should remain. Of the vast amount of artists featured on the Joe.ie article, I found over 50 instances where a band or musical act has been indexed in Wikipedia. The previous comment to vote Delete seems malicious in their intent. Denial of something notable is not due to an agenda to disregard lesser known on a scale of Rolling Stone Magazine to Joe.ie and other independent sources similar. I ask the admin to have respect to the fact that in the WP:NBAND guidlines, there is no mention to a comaparable scale of source; however, if the sources are multiple and independent you must document; furthermore, where there is a debate for AfD and their is not a general consensus, Wikipedia guidelines stipulate the article should remain. Even in the above editors in support of deletion, there is doubt and/or lack of knowledge on the topic for an admin to delete this article. -- Schlossbergfes 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't !vote "Remain" here, this is an AfD, not Brexit. When you've been here as long as I have, you come across articles like Kuda Bux (band) (now deleted, but for non-admins the opening sentence is "Kuda Bux are a five piece rock band from Wickford, Essex, England. The band takes their name from the old Indian mystic Kuda Bux."), which sat in a completely useless state for ten years and nobody could do anything about. Wikipedia is not the only website in the entire world, and the band will not be wiped out in a Stalinish fashion on the rest of the internet. It's not important to have a Wikipedia article - focus on improving what we already have, such as taking Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs to GA, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response please, there is no need to be aggressive. I simply offered my opinion in this debate and did not, as you say: !vote. Schlossbergfes 16:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Schlossbergfes: They were not being at all aggressive, and saying so does not make it so. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 The use of an exclamation raises tone and the subject was mocking the intellect of the respondent by referencing brexit. Additionally, saying "You don't !vote" is a command that is aggressive.Moonchild101 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonchild101: A couple of points to assist you in the furtherance of your wiki-career.
Please always remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors: assume they are here to help rather than hinder the encyclopaedia.
The exclamation mark, on WP, means not what you think it means  :) Please see this explanation and why these proceedings are not a vote. That's what the excl. mark references.
Brexit is irrelevant and clearly a cultural touchstone as to something that is—unlike this AfD—actually a vote.
Saying "You don't vote" = saying "we none of us vote" here.
And please remember to indent your replies to whoecer you are replying to by the use of colons: see WP:INDENT.
Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 So Ritchie333 is saying "You don't not vote." see Double negative.
@Moonchild101: I have indented our conversation; this is how it should look. Please also remember to sign your posts using ~~~~, which will automatically insert your signature.
To answer your question (again), no, ​Ritiche333 wasn't saying you don't not vote, so I don't need to read about double negatives, about which my knowledge already suffices. Ritiche333 was actually saying "You don't get to vote in something that isn't a vote in the first place." Not the same.
Please read all the links you have been given. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Serial Number 54129 has got my intent correctly. Accusing other editors of bad faith and suspecting them of aggressive or malicious activity is not going to get the result you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. So let's just stick to reviewing the sources listed in the article. Of the 20 sources, 13 are simply gig listings or links to streaming sites – the second part of criterion 1 of WP:BAND says to exclude "works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates". So these 13 references can be discounted straight away. According to one editor who believes the article should be kept, the band fulfil criterion 11, "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", via their appearances on Pandora and Dublin South FM. But as there is no archive of these sites, we can't verify this, so they both fails WP:V, and in any case, we can't tell if they were actually in rotation (i.e. played more than once) or just received a single play. The article from the Irish Music Rights Organisation is a press release from the band's management/label, so it's not independent and also fails criterion 1 of WP:BAND. The Night Nomads and Into the Echo podcast are blogs and fail WP:RS. The Sharpe also appears to fail WP:RS because there's no indication anywhere on its website about how professional its writers are or whether there is any editorial control: I can't find anything about the writer of the piece (and Zuzanna Piasek shouldn't be a difficult name to Google) or any of its other writers, bar one – Tahlia Peppard is a student from Zimbabwe in her final year at university, so she's definitely not a professional writer, and so you assume the others aren't either. That just leaves the one site from Joe the "keep" editors keep harping on about, but WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial sources, not just one. It's also been suggested that the band pass criterion 9 of WP:BAND, "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" – firstly, the band are described as "finalists", no indication of a top three placing. Secondly, the Crystal Skull Sessions is far from being a major music competition – it's a standard "local talent contest" with no independent sources indicating its notability. Thirdly, it's disingenuous to link Sin-é in the article to the notable former New York City club of the same name which closed a decade ago – this Sin-é is a Dublin club. So, literally one reliable source in the whole article... it doesn't pass. It could be WP:TOOSOON as already mentioned, and maybe the band will be notable once their records start charting. Richard3120 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response With that rational on The Sharpe, ANY website could "indicate" how "professional" it is and that's acceptable? I urge the admin to visit thesharpe.com and judge for yourself whether this is a notable source... if it is, in your opinion, then Joe.ie and Thesharpe.com alone are enough the keep this article indexed; let alone the supporting citations for differing sources that affirm that this musical group is active and noteworthy in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Moonchild101 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my personal rationale, it's determined by WP:RS and WP:V (particularly WP:NEWSBLOG), which state that sources should be written by professional writers and subject to editorial oversight, neither of which appear to apply to The Sharpe. The onus is on you to prove the website meets the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Richard3120's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, Richard3120's inputs and notes from other contributors. Namely that the type of coverage currently available is of that type that confirms existence rather than notability, substantially includes republished versions of (often the same) promotional material and press releases, and other trivial coverage. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. At worst WP:PROMO. (On the latter I would note that the level of noise from new/connected accounts is disquieting. And ultimately likely counter productive.) Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep arguments are overlooking the key wording in WP:BAND: "musicians and ensembles may be notable..." "May" is different than "is." Coverage in sources need to stand up to scrutiny. There could be even more independent, reliable sources beyond the one or two here, but the coverage needs to be significant. As reiterated by nearly every other delete comment, this is all run-of-the-mill coverage and listings that are the due of any music act that makes the effort to promote themselves and get recognition. Most charitably, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. As it stands now--with one released Ep and evidence of regular performances-- this subject has no noteworthy accomplishment that would give it encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2018 (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/Run_in_Red_(band)&oldid=846916339"