Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jellyrox

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) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyrox[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WPGNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:MUSICBIO: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The Jellyrox meets criteria 1, 11 (debatable), and 12.

(This does not totally prove his notability.....but it does prove he passes this specific statement by Wikipedia) RhettGedies (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have not been any non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself and so fails 1. 11 is not supported and really requires charting. 12 is also not supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment Regarding 1: Are you saying that different Christian websites (NewReleaseTuesday.com, Broken FM. Interviews, Cmaddict.com, etc.) and radio stations' websites are not valid for this?

Regarding 11: I quote you "11 is not supported and really requires charting."

Since it does not actually say that in the Wiki Musician guidelines, the part I have bolded is null and void until it can be backed by more evidence. To deal with the first half, the interview from KORB (Broken.FM) clearly support he is being played on a decently big radio station (NGEN Radio also plays him...but apparently their official Twitter is not good enough of a citation for the songs they play, track by track daily. I would argue the validity of this.).

Regarding 12: Again, KORB's interview with him is sufficent until proven not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhettGedies (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem without providing charts to support item 1 means it's not reliably sourced and since it can't be proven, the suggestion that it actually happened is null and void not my statement.

I'm not certain that one on-air interview on a radio station counts toward notability either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it needs to be proven that the subject was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence for notability and response to previous statement:

Recently found another radio interview with NRT Radio that was transfered from live recording/airing to "electronic post." (see link for interview: http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/article.php?article_id=1094)

Regarding 1 of the guidelines: I can't really comprehend how one can put clout in the 0.1 percent chance that official Christian websites are not the ones writing the reviews/summaries about The Jellyrox. If you are doubting that, you are doubting the credibility of everything on Wikipedia that has been cited by those site(s) (e.g. CMaddict.com is looked to as a professional site for reviewing Christian music, recently, Relient K's new album was reviewed by them and cited on the Wikipedia article.) If they aren't credible, why are they being cited for more professional renowned artists?

Regarding 11, if you go to NGENradio.com and go to music, they have a record for the music played that day. As of today (November 5, 2013), I saw The Jellyrox in the archive/line-up. Unfortunately, the list for today(Nov. 5th) will probably not be accessable by tommorow, but a new list will take it's place as the other is filed somewhere unaccessable to the common user (hence why they post track-by-track on Twitter). All this to say, there is proof of The Jellyrox in a routine daily rotation.

Regarding 12 and the Broken FM interview, see above for the officially published interview from NRT Radio for more support if that one isn't sufficent and notable (which hasn't been proved "yes" or "no" yet, mind you).

Regarding the WeLove Christian music awards that The Jellyrox is nominated for: They are being sponsered by New Release Tuesday (which claims to be the largest Christian Music Site online at this time) and Grand Canyon University. This should be sufficient clout to make them "credible."

(Note: This doesn't support anything, but a group of approximately 15 fans are in the process of trying to get The Jellyrox on Air1 Radio as well.)RhettGedies (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely close to credible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio airplay, awards, and even charting don't prove notability on their own, hence why WP:MUSICBIO only says an artist "may be notable" if the criteria are met. They certainly help, but without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as specified by WP:GNG (keep in mind, this doesn't include interviews, album reviews, or short news articles), all the radio play and awards in the world don't mean anything. NRT and CM Addict are both technically reliable sources (by virtue of having editorial oversight), but the closest either of them have to a proper article on the band is this one, and even that barely tells you anything about them. If you found something like this or this, that would be something else, but without that, it's hard to prove they're notable. In short, delete.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cited Cross Rhythms. This doesn't count just because it is small?

and, do artist profiles on NRT mean anything towards credability, this one?

Indie Vision Music also has a decent amount of published posts regarding The Jellyrox'. One of them is an interview, this one. As well as a post re-affirming the release of Embellish after many small posts of each song's debut via a stream.

Here is a CMAddict post highlighting an acoutic single by JRX. RhettGedies (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than just a paragraph or two. The articles I linked to talk at length about their respective bands and what makes them notable; most of those are just brief news articles, press releases, or just plain gushing over the band. They don't reveal anything that makes them different from any other indie band, other than being the lead singer from Eleventyseven. Still not notable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, my resources are almost dry (you two are doing a fabulous job btw). Here is a brief press release regarding the WeLove awards. It probably doesn't help anything but whatever, here it is. RhettGedies (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's too bad.~~ This last one is about a nomination for a non-notable award. It's already been determined that WE LOVE CHRISTIAN MUSIC AWARDS are not notable. No one really writes about except NRT and the artists who are nominated for or win the award. It needs to be written about by others. The Doves are notable because others write about them. The Covenant Awards (Canadian GMA) are notable because they are written about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sarcastic. I was genuinely complementing you. RhettGedies (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but I realize how that came across. I have stricken if. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Awards, a few sites besides NRT have written about them. Judge for yourself of course: here, here, here, and here. (I also found the Portal discussion that you are involved in, Walter. So I know this probably won't unhinge your opinion on them.) RhettGedies (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another review that talks a little bit about The Jellyrox in general as well as his debut release (2010): here RhettGedies (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop looking for more material to support this artist until you've read WP:RS, WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO and clearly understand them. Your new source states that "Mountain Xpress is an independent newspaper located in Asheville, North Carolina." Looking at the source specifically. The first thing I notice is that the author is Alli Marshall. I look for a staff section and see http://www.mountainx.com/info/contact . It appears that Alli Marshall does a lot of writing for this independent newspaper. "aeblog" draws a bit of a concern though. It's not clear if this is a RS or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.

You only addressed the one article. What did you think of the other articles addressing WeLove? Also, what did you mean when you said, ""aeblog" draws a bit of a concern though. It's not clear if this is a RS or not." Please elaborate more for us basic/simple users, such as me.RhettGedies (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The We Love discussion shouldn't be made here, but it's still weak. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ITunes, facebook, tumblr, bandcamp, soundcloud, twitter, instagram, youtube! If there is some notability hiding somewhere in this mess then in it's current form this article needs some TNT. We Love awards are not major. There's a lack of coverage of the band in independent reliable sources and a search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you fail to mention New Release Tuesday, Broken FM, and Indie Vision Music in your post. If you are going to cite the sources, then cite them all please.RhettGedies (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While all of those are technically reliable sources (editorial oversight and whatnot), the sources cited from them in the article do not cut the mustard. One is an NRT artist profile (not reliable, as they tend to be user-edited and/or copied from the band's press bio), one is an interview that seems to be no longer available (and anyway is only used to source the fact that it exists), this one is a blog by a staff member that only really talks about the one song, and the Heta Himlen review by IVM is, of course, an album review and thus does not count as significant coverage. The piece from the Asheville Citizen Times is just a list of upcoming concerts and does not list an author.

Simply put, none of the sources or claims currently in the article, nor any of the ones presented in this discussion, have sufficiently proved that the Jellyrox are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Therefore, I maintain my vote of "delete".--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which interview are you talking about? The Broken FM one simply must be searched for on their site (or the podcast version on iTunes is easy to find)

The NRT review is on a typed-out electronic copy on their website. RhettGedies (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the wall of text, retention is still only supported by the article's creator. Not sure why this has been relisted again. The arguments for deletion are policy-based while the arguments for keeping this seem to return to the same misinterpretations of policy. I'm not trying to insult the article's creator but dragging this out is becoming colosseum-esque. The great irony is that we're probably only a couple of good sources away from notability and spending time making the subject notable away from WP (rather than spending time on WP arguing that it is already) would be a much better use of your time. Work on getting the subject some good coverage in a couple of magazines and you can dispense with all of the above. There's a very good chance this could be notable in the future - go and make it so. Stalwart111 12:02, 23 November 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.