Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cryptkeeper Five

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cryptkeeper Five[edit]

The Cryptkeeper Five (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)

Fails WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor who is a follower of, but not associated with the subject. I vote to keep the article. Among its references are an article from a writer for Steppin' Out Magazine, and a published book from a notable author who writes about underground rock music. Additionally, there is reference to significant coverage by web periodicals which specialize in the band's particular music niche.

Edit: I have added a "press coverage" section, and included examples of writing about the band from Spartanburg Herald, Maximum Rock N'Roll, The Press of Atlantic City, Trentonian, and others. I know that this is heavy handed and introduces a new problem of non-neutral tone. The article now needs more work than it did prior to my effort. However, I wanted to meet the notability critique head on. Keithramone33 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Ok, it's been over a week. I have worked hard to improve the page, to establish notability for the subject. There are multiple non-trivial references from credible sources not associated with the band. There has been no discussion here supporting deletion since my original objection. Can I remove the tags now? Keithramone33 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]
@Keithramone33: There's a pretty specific process for how these discussions are handled. If there's little-to-no participation after the first week, the discussion is generally relisted, as it was above by Davewild. That means it goes another week. If, again, it doesn't attract any opinions it will likely be relisted for another week. If no participation at that time it'll be closed as no quorum (basically means no action). Regardless of what happens, though, the deletion tags need to be taken down by whoever closes the discussion (which, since I'm already involved, cannot be me). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article establishes that the band has been covered in at least 2 published books, as well as in at least a half dozen reputable newspapers and/or magazines. The "published books" and "press coverage" section includes references to this coverage. References that are reputable, non-trivial, and non-routine include: Spartanburg Herald, The Press of Atlantic City, Chorus and Verse (Steppin' Out Magazine journalist), as well as the Gary Wien and Mick Mercer books. I would also include the Ink 19 concert review in this category as well, with the caveats that that magazine doesn't have a Wiki page and the band were the support act (nevertheless considered significant enough to be given non trivial coverage in the article). Finally, down in the discography there are links to album reviews from Ox-Fanzine, which is a serious enough German music magazine. Meets criteria 1 of music notability guidelines.
The article does make use of interviews from blogs that cover this particular music scene. These are not intended to be the basis of the notability argument, but merely to flesh out the article's biographical details.
Keithramone33 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing it myself. Any reliable source I can actually review that's listed in this article either doesn't mention the subject at all or is only a casual mention. I'm seeing a lot of blog posts, user-contributed sites, that sort of stuff. Just not enough there there to meet the GNG. Changing vote to Keep per Keithramone's additions -- those look like good sources from reputable enough sources. Thanks for the work. Nha Trang Allons! 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I want to address the previous editor's comment of "reliable source (that the editor) can actually review". Two of the sources that I have claimed above as reliable are easily reviewable on the web. Those are the Spartanburg Herald link[1] (and if one looks at this, then it shouldn't be said that there are no reviawable, reputable sources), and Chorus and Verse (Steppin' Out Magazine journalist)[2]. I acknowledge that, while I am correctly reporting the credential of the journalist responsible for the second article (writer's bio follows the article), the website itself accepts freelance submissions. With respect to a third article that I am claiming as reputable, The Press of Atlantic City, the article ("MUSIC DEFINES TALES OF THE CRYPTKEEPER FIVE") was a 1043 word piece that appeared on page 27 of the September 20, 2002 print edition. The only way to access it online, which I have done, is to pay $2.99 for the archived article. The Ox-Fanzine reviews are easy enough to preview, and translate features are easy enough to come by. I haven't quoted from them because I don't know if it's good practice to quote a translation, but I have provided the links. For the books, all I can do is provide page numbers to help others preview.
As for the blogs used, I'm repeating myself, but I haven't used them to assert any controversial details, nor do I claim that they enhance the notability claim. They simply help add helpful biographical details.
The article can use a rewrite, and given time I will do it. However, in the meantime, I assert that I have demonstrated enough notability to avoid deletion.Keithramone33 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Keithramone33 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Keep: This article needs some improvements but I don't think it should be deleted. There's enough coverage here for notability in my opinion.--Scantunl (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls short of notabilty and is one of a growing list of articles that has the intense attention of a small but growing group of meatpuppets. Ridernyc (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ridernyc: I respect your opinion regarding notability, but resent your accusation. Had to look "meatpuppet" up. I saw that the article said assume good faith, which you haven't. "Small but growing group..."? Two editors have agreed with me here. One changed his mind, does it stand to reason I used a meat puppet tactic to get that vote? The other is an anonymous user w/o a page. I wouldn't have sought such help b/c I wouldn't have thought it would hold too much water (although thanks Scantun!). But why is it so suspicious? Someone w/o an account looks up a band they have interest in, see the tag, create an account, and weigh in...
Secondly, I see you've tagged another of my articles. I get it but... I have enough to do here, wouldn't good form be to let this one resolve first? (it is easier to destroy than create). I mean thanks for leaving my other two alone so far, sheesh!
I know we're to leave the personal out of this, but I feel like "(s)he started" ("meatpuppet").Keithramone33 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

Note: I have recently added a couple new references that I have found. I do look forward to eventually improving the article for tone, style, and (perhaps) content, but this discussion is about notability, which I hereby reassert.Keithramone33 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120301/ENT/203011008
  2. ^ http://www.chorusandverse.com/content.php?id=20021012A
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/The_Cryptkeeper_Five&oldid=1138837110"