Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents 1 3 (unremarkable bands) 2 Votes 2.1 Support 2.2 Oppose

[edit] 3 (unremarkable bands)

"An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.

• This is a subset of the guidelines WP:MUSIC. It is not possible to pass the music criteria without releasing an album or receiving media attention.
• The point of this proposal is that minor garage bands and high school music groups frequently create articles about themselves, despite them having no fame whatsoever. Such articles tend to receive unanimous delete-votes on VFD.
• It is possible (though highly unlikely) that a stub article is written about a famous musician, without the article asserting an album release or media coverage. However, it is likely that such a stub will be improved rather than deleted by well-meaning admins or RC patrollers. Also, if it happens to be deleted, it can easily be recreated with actual content.
• If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B, which is a reworded version to address Pburka's concern.

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:48 (UTC)
2. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
3. Even if the band is notable, an article on a band that has no such references is "content-free", and can be deleted anyway. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
4. Remember that these are allowed speedies, and not that articles HAVE to be speedied. Admins have judgement too! humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

   The most aggressive admins are the ones who patrol CSD. Kappa 4 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

   Very slightly POV, no? Could equally well be "the most dedicated". Here is not the place for that discussion IMHO. -Splash 5 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

5. I certainly support it for blatantly obvious cases (i.e. high school kids' bands, local bands, etc.). But make sure you do your research before deleting a band article outright. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
   • If research is required, then the article should go to VfD. Speedy criteria are intended to allow admins to delete Wikipedia pages "on sight". See WP:CSD. Pburka 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
6. This falls nicely beneath the criteria for two albums at WP:MUSIC and picks out articles that usually go down unanimously on VfD (counterexamples not invited, because I said "usually"). -Splash 5 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

   Support, with the understanding that it covers only bands that meet no WP:MUSIC criteria. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 02:01 (UTC)

   Vote withdrawn as inconsistent with my support of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

7. I would hope that any admin considering a speedy would take the time to perform a Google test.

   (preceding unsigned comment by Denni sometime before 5 July 2005 02:25 (UTC))

   I would hope that they'd do a lot better than a Google test. It's quite possible for a band with multiple albums to not have Google results proving that fact. Factitious July 6, 2005 01:56 (UTC)

8. Support, with the proviso that these are actually checked before being speedied. Allowed, yes; required, not. Alphax ^τεχ 5 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)
9. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
10. Support. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
11. What humblefool said above. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
12. Support per humblefool and Alphax. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
13. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
14. Support. I agree with humblefool and Alphax. --G Rutter 5 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
15. Support, and I don't see The Dell-Vikings (the current state of the article, anyway) as fitting this description, either. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
16. SimonP July 5, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
17. Support. This eliminates stuff like the DTF fiasco I encountered as a new user. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
18. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
19. Support. Too many garage bands keep popping up on VfD... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:25 (UTC)
20. Support. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
21. Support, although being note worthy, or not, should take precedence. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
22. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
23. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
    • Porturology's 250th contribution was at (or after) 12:28, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. —Cryptic (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
24. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)
25. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
26. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:21 (UTC)
27. Support. jni 7 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
28. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
29. I like this. Any content lost can easily be recreated. Support Steve block 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
30. Dsmdgold 14:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
31. Weak support I prefer VFD route, but I think admins can be trusted to make that determination from a speedy delete discussion.Inigmatus 15:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. —Cryptic (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
32. Support – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Vegaswikian 04:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
34. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Stub articles are constantly being written about notable bands without asserting album releases or media coverage. {{music-importance}} is designed for this kind of case. There is no way a newbie would guess they have to mention albums or media coverage. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
2. A subset of the criteria at WP:MUSIC is insufficient, as any one of the 7 criteria are sufficient for inclusion. The Dell-Vikings would be eligible for speedy deletion under this proposal. Pburka 4 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
   • True, but that's because that article's content was limited to "Look for the song "Come and Go with Me" on the main fan page for the movie "Joe Versus the Volcano" ...the score for the movie was written by George Delarue." That's no content, it doesn't even say it's about a band. Please note that an article can always be recreated (this time with content) if the topic has merit. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
   1. • That article has conteNt, but no conteXt, and if it speedied it should be done under that criterion. Kappa 4 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
      • Even the new article doesn't indicate anything about media coverage or albums (a single is not an album). Pburka 4 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
3. Specifically criteria 5 or 6 from WP:MUSIC could be true without the article mentioning media coverage, and without the article being worthless or empty of content. Probably rare, but there it is. DES 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
   1. • Radient wrote, on my talk page: That is correct. Ouch. Several weeks of discussion and nobody mentioned point five and six on bands. Okay, since the proposal has been up for a very short time, I'll reword it to include all of WP:MUSIC and contact the voters about it. Point five is easy to add; would you agree that point six is impossible without attracting media attention? If not, please give me a hand in suitable wording. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 21:04 (UTC)
        • My response: Point 6 is unlikely if not impossible without attracting media attention, although it might be web media only, particualrly if the preformer is notable only within style of limited popularity. A quite well known folk-singer, for example (well known within the folk-song community) might get little or no non-web media attention. But a useful start of an article about such an artist might fail to mention the media coverage, even though it has in fact occured. In short, this works only if you require the article to mention one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, and that would probably cause too many false speedy deletes, IMO. DES 4 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
4. I agree that the assertion of any part of WP:MUSIC should be sufficient to warrant a full VFD, wheraas this only uses part of those criteria. Though I would be happy to see CSD extended to pages that don't match any of those criteria. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:48 (UTC)
5. Ensuring someone doesn't meet WP:MUSIC needs a VfD. JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
6. Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
7. I would support if the phrase "nor having had media coverage" were deleted. That phrase is too subjective and will almost certainly lead to disputes. For instance, what would qualify as media coverage? Say the band got played on a local radio station... or did well in a Garageband.com contest... does that qualify? Too subjective. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
8. The assertion of any of the WP:MUSIC criteria should be sufficient to force a vfd. In any case, the articles this is aimed at will probably qualify for proposal 2, if they're about individual musicians as opposed to bands. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
9. I agree with User:Pburka above. I wrote the revised version of The Dell-Vikings article, which clearly asserts that the group satisfied WP:MUSIC criterion #1 (they had two top 10 singles in the USA). I didn't discuss their albums because albums were less of a priority for 1950s doo-wop groups than they are for contemporary bands. (They did have at least one album.) I don't know what kind of media coverage they got, although the fact that they had two top 10 singles implies that they must have had some. So I vote no to this particular proposal. --Metropolitan90 July 5, 2005 03:51 (UTC)
10. I agree with those who see The Dell-Vikings as a disturbing countercase. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
11. No. What's wrong with listing on VfD? See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
12. Too special-purpose — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
13. Agree with Bcat. If proposal 1 passes, most of these will be speedy-able under that, and those that aren't shouldn't be speedy candidates. Also agree with Kappa that these criteria might be hard to guess for new users. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:17 (UTC)
14. An admin assessing this alone is too liable to get it wrong. I would accept a proposal that says re-routes cases like this to WP:MUSIC where the experts will get it right. This has the advantage of relieving the load on normal VfD. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
15. Too susceptible to the ignorance of the admin - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
16. Oppose. This would allow speedy deletion of articles that demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:25 (UTC)
17. --Mononoke 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
    • Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. —Cryptic (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
18. No reason that a new user should know that they need to cite media coverage. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
19. Oppose in favor of Proposal 3-C, which addresses the problems of instruction creep and subjectivity of this proposal. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] July 6, 2005 03:22 (UTC)
20. I have some sympathy with this one, but aside from the various comments above, it evaluates music-making purely in terms of a particular form of dissemination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
21. Oppose in favor of Proposal 3-C. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
22. Oppose Requires too much Wikipedia policy knowledge of new users and is too directive of admin action. Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
23. Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
24. Oppose. This requires too much research to qualify for a speedy. It takes a VfD to determine if a band meets the notability requirements for WP:MUSIC. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
25. Oppose review on VFD seems to be a more reasonable approach. --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
26. Prefer the VFD route. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
27. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC) Not a good rule, as it presupposes knowledge on the part of speedy deleters that is not readilly available, Better to allow the trial by fire of VFD, so that the articles ability to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines can be better assessed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
28. Oppose. This is fine for VfD. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Mel Etitis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:57 (UTC)
30. Oppose in favor of 3-C. TheCoffee 21:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
31. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
32. No. JuntungWu 14:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
33. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 04:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)