Talk:The Sugarman 3

Extended notability dispute

 * This band released 4 albums and the band members are not only figureheads of retrofunk movement but also very well established session musicians who collaborated with people such as Robbie Williams, Amy Winehouse and Lilly Allen. As a consequence, it satisfies multiple notoriety conditions which point this attempt at speedy deletion is at least unwarranted for. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Baloney. No references at all except Allmusic. You've given us nothing to verify what you say. Looks like promotion to me. Speedy deletion is in order here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't talk in plural, as you are as much of a wikipedian as anyone around you and you only answer for your own actions. Secondly, if you don't understand Wikipedia's notoriety guidelines and you are incapable of searching and understanding them then you shouldn't be tagging articles for deletion to begin with.  Thirdly, how exactly does a portuguese man promotes a NY band whose last album was released 7 years ago?  And finally, if you feel compelled to use personal attacks as your only justification for your baseless deletion proposals then you should spend some time figuring out what you are doing on wikipedia. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're merely trying to evade posting any references. I checked. The only ones I could find were basically listings of records or MP3's for sale, and those do not support notability. It is not up to me to do your work, buddy. It's your article, you find the supporting references to support notability or off it goes. If your nationality prevents you from doing so (and I don't see what that could possibly have to do with any of this), then don't write the article in the first place. I have not attacked you personally; indeed, the opposite is true. Stop whining and start establishing notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence it is shown that you've tagged this article for speedy deletion while failing to understand the notability criteria that are supposed to be used as a basis for that sort of decision. Wikipedia's band notability criteria are not catalogue listings nor is your ability to find references, which appears to be the only thing you've managed to come up to justify your speedy deletion tag.  This is a band which released 4 albums which are still available pretty much everywhere and that was formed by well established and well respected session musicians which collaborated with a pretty respectable list of top 10 artists.  And although that alone satisfies 3 notability criteria you still fail to understand that.  And regarding your recurring personal attacks (is that how you justify all your speedy deletion tags?) I've mentioned my nationality to demonstrate that your accusation of me promoting the band is beyond absurd.  Nothing more, nothing less.  So please stick to the point and please do avoid acting silly. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment about promotion is peripheral to this discussion. The band is not notable by Wikipedia standards. You have refused to give us any references to prove what you say. We can't just take your word for it! We have no proof that these session musicians are who you say there, or that the collaborated with some unnamed "top 10 artists." Merely having albums for sale does not make a band notable. If these people are who you say they are, you should have absolutely no problems finding references to support your claims. So get to it! Now! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of me promoting the band is a telling sign of how you tried to justify your speedy deletion tag. You fail to understand the notability guidelines and when asked for any justification you were only able to recourse to personal attacks and baseless accusations of me, of all people, being promoting a band which hasn't released a new album in 7 years.  And you keep on claiming that no notability criteria has been met.  Do you even read the discussion?  And don't you even understand wikipedia's notability criteria?  You are entitled to your own opinion but your opinion is not what wikipedia follows to assess notoriety.  Please do read up on Wikipedia's notability criteria before continuing to ignore the facts.  -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the promotional aspect is only peripheral to the discussion. the main problem is notability, and your obvious unwillingness to provide any sources whatsoever to show how this band meets notability standards. I will repeat this one more time: PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES. Period. If you do, and it shows that the band meets notability standards, I'll gladly end any effort to delete this. But as of now, it appears that you are bent on using my off-hand remark about the article being promotional as an excuse to avoid showing how the band is notable. Forget whether or not this article is promotional. That's not the main issue. The main issue is notability, or lack thereof, and your inability or unwillingness to prove it by providing sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to decide where to invest your time and energy, which means that you are absolutely free to invest every effort you can muster do delete whatever article you wish to make disappear. Yet, if you wish to spend your time in such a venture then you could at least make some effort to read what has already been written in this very discussion.  Just because you opt to ignore everything that has been presented in this discussion it doesn't mean no notability criteria is met by this band.  As I've already pointed out in this very discussion, the Sugarman 3 meet at least 3 notability criteria.  Why you insist in ignoring that is a mystery to me.  Do you believe that helps wikipedia in any way, shape or form? -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you are ignoring the requirement to provide REFERENCES so that we can verify what you have written! We can't just go on your say-so. But you continue to refuse to provide references. Why? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For Christ's sake, didn't you claimed you had read allmusic's article on the band? Didn't you notice the link to the band's record label? Didn't you noticed the link to an article on a band's member? So not only you fail to understand wikipedia's band notoriety guidelines but you also fail at reading the sources? Well, as discussing this with you is as constructive as talking to a brick wall I'll wait until another wikipedian other than yourself or even an editor steps in.  -- Mecanismo | Talk 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it yourself. Links to other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. (Please click on that link to see what is considered reliable.) Notability is not inherited from Adam Scone just because he has his own Wikipedia article - which I may nominate for deletion as well, because it has no sources other than his own website. The only link to an external article you have provided is to an brief Allmusic article, which by itself does not establish notability. That's a precedent that has been established many times over the years regarding articles about musicians and bands. I will repeat, one more time: YOU MUST PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FROM INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE SOURCES SO WE CAN VERIFY WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN - this specifically excludes other Wikipedia articles. I don't know how I can say it any more plainly than that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can put as many bold tags as you wish but that doesn't mean you will suddenly start making any sense nor does it make you any right. The band members exist, the record label exists, the albums were released, their participations are accessible to everyone (even yourself).  You already accessed them.  Just because you throw a tantrum because your precious speedy deletion tag was shown to be merit-less and absurd doesn't make that any less valid.  But go ahead and reply with even more bold tags if it makes you feel better. -- Mecanismo | Talk 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mere existence does not make a band or musician notable. Otherwise, every little garage band in the world would be notable. It is painfully obvious that you have nothing more to offer to this article by way of proving the band's notability, or else you are just too stubborn to do so. You have had your chance, and refused it. Therefore, it is now up to an admin to decide on speedy deletion; if that is declined, and AfD discussion will immediately commence, as per WP procedure. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do inform yourself on wikipedia's notability policy and then read what I've already posted. You keep on (intentionally?) forgetting about what has already been pointed to you multiple times.  You can't force a band and it's members to become non-notable according to wikipedia's policy just because you keep on forgetting what has been told. -- Mecanismo | Talk 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Sugarman 3
To decide if this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, I have nominated it for deletion at Articles for deletion/The Sugarman 3. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. I have also nominated their two records: Sugar's Boogaloo and Soul Donkey (at the same AfD discussion)

This is not my usual subject, but I think they could best be discussed together; there is no need to quarrel, for the community will decide. My advice, to you, just as Realkyhick said, is to look for independent reviews or other references from independent published sources--they will make all the difference. Find them, and nobody will want to delete the articles. For the AfD discussion, I;d suggest you examine other AFD discussions on similar topics to see the way the standards are applid. .  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)