Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americade (band)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Americade (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a bit of an odd nomination and is related to the AfD for Gerard de Marigny. The article was created by someone who appears to be de Marigny and was extremely promotional in tone. The article for his band has similar issues with promotion and it doesn’t help that it’s almost entirely unsourced. This is so promotional in places that I was almost tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion.

None of the sources can be verified and while I’m aware that sourcing doesn’t have to be on the Internet, it’s also problematic in this case since the article for de Marigny had several issues where non-notable, minor claims were promoted and puffed up to the point where they asserted far more notability than they would actually give – to the point where they were being portrayed as extremely notable things. To give an example of claims in the de Marigny article that were puffed up, the article tried to puff up notability by asserting video views on YouTube and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content.

This makes me question how good the sourcing actually is, as I’m afraid that this might be the case here and the sourcing might actually be minor or trivial coverage. This also makes me question the association with notable acts and people, as it’s possible that the association is so minor that it wouldn’t be something that could give notability. Heck, some of the sources that we can access don’t back up the claims, such as this obituary that doesn’t even mention that the deceased was a part of the band. This is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award. For all we know, this award could be some offhand mention. It might be real, but the problem here is that the article (and the other articles the COI editor has edited) has been made into such a promotional mess that there’s no telling what is actually a legitimate notability giving claim and what isn’t. It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page.

Now here’s the other problem and the other reason I brought this to AfD. Even if the band is notable, the article would need such a substantial re-write that it’d honestly be better to WP:TNT the article and start from scratch. We can’t verify half of the content and a search brings up little to nothing about the band that isn’t Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources, and various junk hits. If not for a few database type listings and the primary sources, it’d almost be like this band never existed at all. I’m aware that there might be coverage off the internet, but given the promotional puffery in the article and related articles, I’m arguing for a deletion. If any non-COI interested party wants to take this into their userspace for a rescue or can work a miracle, feel free – I just don’t think that this should be in the mainspace at this point in time without an entire re-write and far stronger sourcing. (Especially as the article as it currently stands seems to be used heavily as a vehicle to promote de Marigny.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward deletion as well. I've been able to verify two of the references - Billboard and The International Encyclopedia of Hard Rock and Heavy Metal - but these are very brief mentions and do not seem sufficient to establish notability under WP:NM. I'm continuing to look. Nick Number (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete. By the author's own admission, even in the band's heydey they were distributing their own albums and the media references all seem to be mentions of a new band with some potential, but which never really established itself. They weren't signed to any major labels, didn't have any national tours, and "did not play live often". If there were better evidence of them being highly influential on other artists then there would be a stronger case for notability, but the (OR) bit that's there about Dave Spitz isn't enough. Nick Number (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My name is Gerard de Marigny. I am the creator of the page in question and would like to offer rebuttal, answers, where possible, to the questions raised above, and ultimately a call not to delete the Americade (band) page. For your consideration:

+ First, I understand the necessity for Wikipedia editors to be cautious and meticulous in policing entries. I, like so many, rely on Wikipedia entries as a valued source of information. It is my go-to first source, in many instances. However, it was for that purpose that I created the page in the first place, for two reasons: 1-There was at least one other Americade (band) page created awhile ago in Italian that was factually incorrect about so many aspects, including band members, band accomplishments (i.e. releases), band creation, dates, and other important information; and 2- though the editor who posted the request for deletion may not be aware, Americade was a historically important band, not so much for what they band accomplished on its own, but for the bands that were inspired after it, like Anthrax (which is inarguably an important band historically), and because of the members of Americade becoming notable musicians after the band broke up. Americade marks a point in time.

+ The point of promotion was brought up first, and I would assert, without substantiation. Why? Because, Americade is a defunct entity. There are no Americade products that are being sold by the author of the article (though there have been many Americade recordings that have been bootlegged over the last thirty years <-- this point alone substantiates the notoriety of the band, another aspect that has been called into question by the editor above. There are many examples of this bootlegging going on today, via the internet. The albums being bootlegged were recording over 30 years ago and are still being purchased today. One can consider that fact alone as substantiating that the band was important, perhaps not to the editor requesting the deletion, but to many other heavy metal enthusiasts around the world.

+ "Extremely promotional in tone" is a subjective statement. My question is then promoting what? A band that hasn't been together in over 20 years? The members themselves or the author of the page? For what purpose? To what end? The word promotion in itself is defined as, "activity that supports or provides active encouragement for the furtherance of a cause, venture, or aim." (Google definition) In keeping with that definition the questions that arise (where the burden of proof should be on the editor who made the assertion) what cause, venture, or aim is supported or to which active encouragement is provided? The band Americade no longer exists (except in its historic significance), no products of any kind are being sold by the Wiki page author (not a penny has been earned from the band since 1984 - no reference given, nor can be given, except the word of the founder of the band). To conclude, the assertion that the page is "extremely promotional in tone" is a subjective one and not substantiated by any facts.

+ Next, "None of the sources can be verified and while I’m aware that sourcing doesn’t have to be on the Internet, it’s also problematic in this case since the article for de Marigny had several issues where non-notable, minor claims were promoted and puffed up to the point where they asserted far more notability than they would actually give – to the point where they were being portrayed as extremely notable things. To give an example of claims in the de Marigny article that were puffed up, the article tried to puff up notability by asserting video views on YouTube and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content."

++ "Problematic" is, again, a subjective word. Problematic for whom ... the editor who raised the point in the first place? Perhaps other Wiki editors or others? But, what about others for which it is not "problematic?" The editor who raised this dispute is attempting to have the page removed primarily because she feels it is written from a subjective point of view, yet her reasoning to come to that conclusion is subjective in itself. <-- One may find this problematic.

++ "non-notable ... minor claims ... puffed up" ... a subjective assertion, at best. Non-notable to whom? To the editor who raised the point in the first place? How can one prove notability? Perhaps the inclusion of the band in "The international encyclopedia of hard rock & heavy metal" (Jasper, Tony; Reynolds, Derek Oliver, Steve Hammond, Dave (1985). The international encyclopedia of hard rock & heavy metal. New York, N.Y.: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0816011339) would prove to many that the band was indeed notable and not "puffed up." "Minor claims" ... "puffed up" are all subjective phrases. One could argue (and provide proof with statements from a number of "notable" producers, musicians, and entertainment executives including people like mega-producer Jeff Glixman (producer of KANSAS, LITA FORD, BLACK SABBATH, GARY MOORE, SAXON, et al., who produced Americade's unreleased second album in 1984, who considered and still considers Americade a notable band of major claims. There are many others, who could substantiate the notability and claims made in the band page, though none are internet sources (but can be furnished by email, from the sources, if necessary, as statements).

++ The example of the YouTube video for Americade's rendition of "We're An American Band" as a "claim" that was "puffed up" by using video views. <-- The views are there. The number of views were not "puffed up," and no other assertion was made to support the editor-in-question's accusation that some "claim" was "puffed up." Where is the proof of that?? While the proof of the video is there on YouTube, as are the views. By merely mentioning facts - the number of views to that date, and that the video exists cannot be disputed.

++ "... and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content." <-- The editor also mentions this as a proof that the author of the Americade band page is making claims that are "puffed up." Subjective again ... puffed up how, exactly? The assertion and linked proof of the many quotation sites that have quoted the Americade band page author, who is also a "notable" novelist and screenwriter are evident. The fact that the sites where the quotes appear accepting user-submitted content," one can argue "supports" the notability of the quotes and author. People not related or associated to the author in any way (and none were ever submitted by the author, himself) from all over the world (the quotes appeared in such varied places as newspapers in Africa to blogs in the Philippines, to other "notable" quotation sites in the US and abroad (all with clickable links) all have posted the author's quotes over a course of the last few years and continue to today, one could argue, supports and substantiates notability, since the definition of notable is, "worthy of attention or notice." (Google definitions). The fact that the quotes are posted in so many places by so many people, and in many cases voted on or liked by many more people fulfills the definition to the letter. One more point ... one can find it ironic that the editor who raised the point dismisses "user-submitted content," since that is the very foundation of Wikipedia, itself. Conclusion: Once again, the editor who raised the point used unsupported, subjective reasoning, while the author of the Americade band page used linked sources and made no other assertions beyond what is evident.

+ "This makes me question how good the sourcing actually is, as I’m afraid that this might be the case here and the sourcing might actually be minor or trivial coverage." <-- This entire statement is subjective, at best. Who decides what "minor or trivial coverage" is? The Wiki editors? Okay, the author of the page is one, as is the editor who raised the point, as are the people who will read this. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so arrive at one. Yet, it should be said that when claims are made on a Wiki page and they are substantiated by sources (which in the case of the Americade band page, they were, utilizing the rule of "best evidence available," then the burden of proof should be placed on the individual raising the request for deletion and refuting the article. "Making me question," and "might be the case" are not proofs and would not be accepted by Wiki for proofs supporting a topic. Conclusion: None of the sourcing is minor or trivial, except by utilizing subjective reasoning. What one person considers trivial, another considers important. In that case, Wiki should merely leave the article as is, published, and allow future others to possibly improve the validity or quality of sources.

+ "Heck, some of the sources that we can access don’t back up the claims, such as this obituary that doesn’t even mention that the deceased was a part of the band. This is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award. For all we know, this award could be some offhand mention. It might be real, but the problem here is that the article (and the other articles the COI editor has edited) has been made into such a promotional mess that there’s no telling what is actually a legitimate notability giving claim and what isn’t. It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page."

++ First, there was no "claim" mentioned that was SUPPOSED to be backed up by the Frank Antico's obituary. The obituary was there, partially, as one of the only existing references that this amazing musician even existed - AND - to substantiate his death. The obituary was not included to substantiate Antico's membership in the band ... "HECK" (to borrow a phrase from the editor who raised the question) there is a PHOTO of Antico that was published in the Wiki article that ALREADY substantiates that! And then to state that since there was no mention of Americade in Antico's obituary that that "this is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award?? One will offer this ... yet another "unsubstantiated" claim that can have no references ... but it is the truth (that can be substantiated by the few who knew Frank Antico) ... Frank Antico died alone in a small furnished apartment in Brooklyn, NY, from a massive heart attack, virtually penniless, at a relatively young age, with relatively few friends. He was survived by an interned mother only and she was not the source for the obituary. Though no source was given for the obituary authorship, it was obvious that whoever wrote it knew nothing of Antico's achievements, band memberships, recordings (he made many), or anything else "notable." For as anyone can see, nothing was mentioned. Conclusion: The fact that things are not mentioned in an obituary is NOT proof that they don't exist or that claims that others make are "puffed up." Frank Antico WAS a member of Americade from 1979-1980. May he rest in peace. And then, basing any consideration to not trust any other claim, because Antico's obituary didn't mention that he was a member of Americade is groundless.

++ "It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page." <-- This statement, based on the above rebuttal can be said to be a "prime example" of why a Wiki editor should "not" raise the question of deleting what some may consider historical and notable and important information regarding a real band that did real things with real people at real points-in-time, utilizing nothing more than a bunch of subjective, unsupported assertions and erroneous examples. Also, as already proven, there was no promotion made or implied. Simply, a Wiki page was created to document (utilizing best evidence) the existence of what most, not all ... many, not most ... some, not many ... several, not some ... a few, not several ... a couple, not a few ... consider important and notable (all those are subjective phrases added for emphasis).

++ "Now here’s the other problem and the other reason I brought this to AfD. Even if the band is notable, the article would need such a substantial re-write that it’d honestly be better to WP:TNT the article and start from scratch. We can’t verify half of the content and a search brings up little to nothing about the band that isn’t Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources, and various junk hits."

++ Now, the editor who raised this call to delete admits, "Even if the band "is" notable ...." A call to action is being raised (substantial re-write or start from scratch). One can argue, if the band is notable, then the facts presented and sources referenced, though many are before the internet was around, are accurate. and if the facts are accurate then the article/page is accurate, which does not call for its deletion or even a substantial re-write, but should be left published to invite future readers/contributors to add to the quality and number of sources. <-- Isn't this the very point of Wikipedia? Conclusion: There is more than enough verifiable proofs and references included in the Americade band Wiki page to support the notion that it not only should NOT be deleted or substantially re-written, but that it is, in fact, one of the BETTER Wiki pages covering an "underground" subject (unsigned heavy metal bands in the late 70s/early 80s would certainly fit the description of "underground."

+ "If not for a few database type listings and the primary sources, it’d almost be like this band never existed at all. I’m aware that there might be coverage off the internet, but given the promotional puffery in the article and related articles, I’m arguing for a deletion."

++ "If not for a few database type listings and primary sources ...???" <-- This statement does not refute the veracity of the article, it ESTABLISHES it and one can argue ENDORSES it! Database listings and primary sources are the BEST references and the core of ANY substantiated document, be it a Wiki page or white paper or magazine or newspaper article.

++ "it'd almost be like this band never existed at all." <-- Except for the photos of the band ... the living members of the band (all named and referenced) that are now still playing in some of the most historic rock bands in history ... the MTV/now YouTube video with over 13,000 views (undisputable) ... that appeared in dozens of the largest rock and entertainment magazines (some were referenced) including Billboard, Hit Parader, Good Times Newspaper, An encyclopedia on rock bands, Young Miss magazine, Gallery magazine, and all of the other international magazines mentioned ... except for all that. This statement made by the editor who raised the point is the primary reason why Wiki editors need to "NOT" use subjective statements when calling for something as egregious and harmful as the deletion of a well-sourced, well-written Wiki page/article.

+ "(Especially as the article as it currently stands seems to be used heavily as a vehicle to promote de Marigny.)"

++ "Seems to be used ..." is a, you guessed it, "SUBJECTIVE" statement! Who does it seem to be ... apparently to the editor who raised the question, perhaps to others, but to all? To many? To some? The definition of promotion was already stated above. What cause, venture, or aim is the editor who raised the point intimating that de Marigny is supporting from the publication of the Americade band page?? In fact, where is any proof whatsoever that de Marigny or any of the other band members are supporting anything at all, from the publication of the Americade band page.

In conclusion: The Americade band page documents the creation, actions, lineups (including two deceased members), accomplishments, and subsequent break-up of what some may consider an important, historical, unsigned, underground rock band. The fact that many of the members of Americade became notable figures themselves further makes the existence of the page vital for historic purposes. And the fact that the author of the Wiki page was a member of the band, while calling for increased scrutiny, understandably, does not negate the veracity of the references or information, nor does it inherently promote the author. If there are provable instances of self-promotion then provide evidence. If not, then leave the page as is, and allow the global Wiki community to add to it or modify it. So far, it has been published for awhile and there are no other "readers" raising any claims against it. Nor have there been anyone to add better quality references. In fact, the editor who raised the question of deletion offers none - none to support the band and NONE to call for deletion of a page that was thoughtfully created, written, referenced, and edited ... and which continues to be available to global scrutiny.

The band existed. The band was composed of who the article said it was composed of. The band did what the article said it did. The band no longer is around. The author of the Wiki page/article has not and does not benefit from the page in any way. The author of the Wiki page/article is now a bestselling author and scriptwriter (all verifiable), yet does not promote or even mention his published works or current projects in the Americade band article/page.

The page was created for the very purpose of why Wikipedia exists ... to allow interested others to learn about an obscure band utilizing best evidence. If the foundation of Wikipedia stems from the quality of its references then the concept of "best evidence" must also be part of the foundation. In the case of the Americade band page, best evidence was utilized, and the author's inherent bias was checked at instance. Read the article yourself, and decide.

For your consideration.

Keep in mind that, while prior to the internet age, sourcing on certain "underground" topics as unsigned heavy metal acts is difficult, none of the sources cited were erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerarddeMarigny (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's make an effort to be somewhat concise, and keep the formatting readable. Consistent indentation and tags, for instance, would help a great deal.
 * One central question is notability. You correctly note that in general usage, this is a subjective term, but Wikipedia has some reasonably specific guidelines on what constitutes notability for a musical act. The result is still a judgment call, but one arrived at by reasoned consensus.
 * Regarding criterion #1 in that linked guideline, the existing sources don't meet "non-trivial" in my view. The International Encyclopedia entry (viewable via a checkout on archive.org) is a three-sentence capsule. The others are all from 1983 and it's not clear that they constitute non-trivial coverage.
 * Regarding criterion #6, it's not clear that two or more of the members are independently notable. The sourcing on all of their existing articles is extremely weak.
 * Another central question is neutrality. As you claim to be one of the subjects of the article, all of the caveats in the guideline on autobiography apply. You should not be directly editing this article, except to remove vandalism or serious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Nick Number (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yikes. You really need to be able to whittle that down. I'm a verbose person, but that's long even by my standards. The bottom line here is that you came on here and created two articles that are extremely light on sourcing and made a lot of claims that aren't really backed up by anything - for instance you placed the obituary after a sentence that claimed he performed in the band. Since the source did not actually mention the band, it should not be used to claim that he was a member. Now as far as photographs go, those aren't slam dunk confirmation of claims for various reasons. For example, we've had people falsify images, use images from elsewhere that didn't pertain to the article at hand, and so on. You might not have done this, but the fact that this has happened somewhere else is the reason why we cannot automatically accept a photograph alone as evidence to back up claims. (The instances where it could be used is when the photo is uploaded from an organization or institution that is known for its fact checking and verification, like the National Archives, but even then an article would require a source to really verify claims.) Now in the cases where the source backed up the claims, these claims were ones that are completely non-notable on Wikipedia per the site guidelines. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia doesn't care if someone is listed on a quotation site because those are a dime a dozen. You would be hard pressed to find any experienced Wikipedian that would consider that noteworthy enough to even warrant a mention on Wikipedia. Now since you are a member of the former band and you're also someone who is selling his work on the Internet (books and what have you), you stand to greatly benefit by having articles on you and the band on Wikipedia because it raises your visibility - especially if the articles are written in a favorable manner. Also as someone with a COI, you're also more likely to see more notability than there might otherwise be and to take any deletion far more personally than an uninvolved person would. The best thing for you to do at this point would be to provide coverage to show that the band and yourself are notable and to provide scans of the sources that aren't easily checked on the Internet so they can be checked to ensure that they would be RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You're new with writing and sourcing stuff on Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult, just that the majority of newbies to Wikipedia don't know the amount of verification and depth that a source will need in order to be considered an in-depth, independent RS on Wikipedia. Since you have a COI here, this is made far more difficult, so providing more coverage and showing scans of the other sources is very important at this stage. I just think that you're far too close to the subject to write about these topics in a neutral fashion, to recognize promotional writing, or to be able to properly judge sources at this point in time. That you can't see where the quotation websites would be seen as a non-notable thing on Wikipedia is just kind of proof of this. 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and if that didn't convince me the lengthy justification from the creator does. Consider salting also - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. While I didn't read the entirety of the creator's lengthy dissertation, I did catch enough of it to recognize that he likely misunderstands what Wikipedia is for: we are not a free public relations platform on which any topic (person, band or otherwise) is entitled to have an article just because they existed. To get into Wikipedia, a band has to be reliably sourceable as having accomplished something which satisfies an WP:NMUSIC criterion, and both parts of that equation have to be met. A band does not get an article just for claiming passage of an NMUSIC criterion if that fact cannot be sourced anywhere — and if a band is so "obscure" that the sourcing has to depend almost entirely on minor music zines and a band member's own self-published website about himself, because quality sourcing on the order of published books, Rolling Stone, Spin and major market daily newspapers doesn't exist, then that is a reason in and of itself why the band doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Is it unfair that the band didn't get as much media coverage as the bassist thinks they should have? Sure. But it's not Wikipedia's job to rectify that unfairness if we have to rely on bad sourcing to do it. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.