Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Endless Sporadic (3rd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An Endless Sporadic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Band with no sourced indication of notability in reliable sources outside of having a couple of songs included in video games; the only sources cited here are band webpages, discussion forums and last.fm (none of which even satisfy WP:GNG, let alone WP:NMUSIC). Four different versions of this article have failed AFD in the past (see table, as well as Articles for deletion/Endless Sporadic, An). I'm not really seeing that this version makes a more compelling case for notability — it's actually a poorer article than the second version, though it's marginally better than the first version — but I don't feel comfortable speedying it without a consensus since the content isn't identical enough to the prior versions to call it a straight repost of deleted material, and clearly somebody is really determined to get this topic into Wikipedia no matter what it takes. That said, I wouldn't necessarily object if someone else did feel it speedyable. This title, in fact, was salted in the past to prevent recreation; the most recent version was created at An endless sporadic (band), but I moved it to the orthographically correct title before learning of the history here. Delete if we don't see serious improvement by close; I'd also propose that if this does close as a delete, we blacklist the phrase "Endless Sporadic" since just salting the title clearly isn't enough. (The hope of establishing a consensus for that is one more reason why I chose to take this to AFD instead of shooting on sight.) Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the article has since been edited to include independent and reliable sources (Wikipedia being one). Also, the band has released two separate albums which at least in spirit meets WPMUSIC criteria 5. To require that the released albums be on a major label seems an arcane requirement in the digital age, but not getting into that debate here. Only noting that given the two albums are available on iTunes would seem to, in effect if not in letter, also satisfy the spirit of this additional criteria.
 * Blacklist seems entirely inappropriate. The first deletion was speedy, and frankly shouldn't have been, given prima fascia satisfaction of criteria 10. The second was before they released their independent albums. And in 2010 they plan a tour which would invariable allow meeting criteria 4. That articles keep getting posted would attest to a certain degree of notability that seems to itself speak against a blacklist, not a wanton disregard for Wiki admin deletions.Mpoloukhine (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that Roine Stolt and Jonas Reingold of The Flower Kings (noted and sourced in the article) can be considered members of the band, and as such would satisfy criteria 6. Reingold is without question a "member" having performed on all album tracks, and while Stolt's production contribution can be debated as making him a "member" clearly the deep involvement of these two notable musicians would come darn close to if not de facto satisfying criteria 6. That makes two criteria met, or nearly met in addition to crit. 10. Surely this is enough to establish sufficient (if not significant) notability to stem deletion?Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the facts that WP:MUSIC (a) says that a band may be notable if it meets those criteria, not that it unequivocally is notable, and (b) explicitly states that In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. Primary sources like the band's own website can be used as supplementary sources once notability is established in reliable secondary sources, but they don't demonstrate notability in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below. Criteria 10 is met three times, and to meet that criteria sourcing Wikipedia articles is sufficient. The remaining sourcing to establish satisfactory notability to allow a full article per Criteria 10 rather than the redirect allowed by meeting criteria 10 is sufficiently reliably sourced (The Flower Kings, iTunes) Criteria 10 having been met and reliably sourced, the debate should no longer be about deletion, but whether it should be a mere redirect or an article. I don't write the rules, I'm just pointing out that they should be adhered to in this case. Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:RS at some point. Sources need to be independent, reliable media, such as newspapers, radio programs or music magazines, which can be consulted at a later date if somebody needs to verify or review the information. Not iTunes, not a band's own website, not the website of another band that the first band are friends with, not a YouTube rip of somebody playing the video game, and not another Wikipedia article — real media, and only real media. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you please refrain from the tone of condescension, it is neither warranted, necessary or constructive to this debate. See my comment below. If you have a problem with the sourcing of the band's contributions to the video games, you need to take it up at those articles, a re-direct would not require additional sourcing. I refer you to the logic of my point under the redirect vs. full article heading below.Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you please refrain from accusing people of condescension who've done nothing of the sort whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion I read WP:RS as if I haven't was completely uncalled for, and condescending; I have read it, and you have no place to suggest I haven't. I ask again that you please refrain from making this debate personal.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly warrants notability?
I do not quite understand what qualifies as something as notable. It seems completely absurd that it must qualify some arbitrary guideline when the band is clearly known to the degree that it's been made four times. The songs are present in a highly successful video game series. After writing this I'll read your shortcuts to see why exactly they don't qualify. I was unaware of the previous three iterations of this article, and just recently came to understand salting, but I will not let some guideline prevent an article from being made. I will bring this article to standards. If you're so upset about it being non-notable and frustrated at the poor quality, then edit them yourselves! I don't listen to the band or own their CDs, but I care enough to try to edit their article!  Annihilan  11:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability = the existence (and presence in the article) of reliable, independent sources about the band, which demonstrate that they've had press or media coverage by which we can verify the accuracy of the information contained in the article. Citing the band's own webpage, last.fm, or web discussion forums doesn't cut it — notability would be demonstrated by citing reputable music magazines, newspapers, and the like. Notability is not about checking off a list of accomplishments — it's about "there has been real coverage of this band in real media", and this article, in all of its various iterations, has yet to show a shred of evidence that the band has ever garnered so much as three words of coverage in a real source. Maybe they have, I don't know — but the onus is on the article's creator to demonstrate that, not on anybody else to grant them the benefit of the doubt or to do their job for them. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (I have condensed all my yesterday's comments for clarity) Articles should be edited by their authors or interested parties, Bearcat, I'm with you on that. As to the definition of notability, the above you provide is a subjective one, not that of WPMUSIC. WPMUSIC is far more specific and clear. WPMUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria..." and Criteria 10 reads "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)"


 * The band has met this criteria on three separate, noted and sourced notable works of media. If it were simply one, then a redirect article would probably be worth considering, but the band has performed music for at least three. Can't redirect anymore, and according to WPMUSIC, the only definition of notability which should apply here, the band has achieved sufficient, if minimal notability.Mpoloukhine (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the facts that WP:MUSIC (a) says that a band may be notable if it meets those criteria, not that it unequivocally is notable, and (b) explicitly states that In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. In other words, no matter how much notability is asserted in the article, it still has to be verifiable in reliable sources that are present in the article. And that doesn't mean that posting one link to a webvideo site where somebody posted a screenrip of the video game solves the problem, either — it means referencing the article to newspaper or music magazine coverage about the band. Even the loftiest, grandest notability claim on earth still does not count toward notability or keepability if it isn't sourced. If you're willing and able to put in the time to source the article up properly, then great, by all means, go for it and make the article keepable. But the article isn't entitled to stick around in its current form, just because it asserts notability under three criteria listed on WP:MUSIC, if the accuracy of those assertions isn't referenced (or referenceable) to reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectuflly, you are incorrect about sourcing as it pertains to Criteria 10. Reference to the Wikipedia for the notable media work to which the band has contributed music is sufficient to meet the criteria 10 requirements. As to the sourcing of the remaining information to establish an article status rather than a redirect on the other hand, I agree with you, and I believe such sourcing is sufficiently reliable (The Flower Kings, iTunes, and I can easily add others if necessary.)Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:RS at some point. Sources need to be independent, reliable media, such as newspapers, radio programs or music magazines, which can be consulted at a later date if somebody needs to verify or review the information. Not iTunes, not a band's own website, not the website of another band that the first band are friends with, and not another Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my point below regarding Criteria 10 and redirect vs. full article as you are clearly missing my point regarding sourcing as it pertains to that criteria, about which you are mistaken. If you question the sourcing of the band's contribution to those games, you should be arguing to have it better sourced at those game articles. And I would ask that you please refrain from the tone of condescension, it is neither warranted, necessary or constructive to this debate. Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have updated sources for two of the three video game tracks originally listed and added a fourth video game track. The sources are I believe now reliable, coming directly from their respective Wikipedia articles, and from third party established outlets.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also added what I believe is reliably sourced advertisement of the band's scheduled first public performance. Again... not to suggest that meets Criteria 4 but to establish notable accomplishment in addition to having met Criteria 10, now on three verifiably sourced instances so that the band "may" be considered notable in light of only having met Criteria 10.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.155.96 (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 10 satisfaction precludes deletion. Redirect v. Full article.
Seems I need to isolate out my main point on disagreeing with the deletion call and subject it to debate on its own. I believe it is clear that the band has met Criteria 10 by virtue of nothing more than sourcing Wikipedia entries for the three video games ("notable works of media") to which the band has contributed music. The remaining debatable topic is whether the band deserves more than the re-direct it has earned by meeting Criteria 10, but having met Criteria 10 the outright deletion is not warranted. Salting and Blacklisting are also clearly not warranted and contrary to Wiki standards.
 * Comment It appears you have very little clue about what makes an article notable by Wikipedia's objective standards, not simply your own subjective ones that are obviously motivating you (or others) to continually try to list this article when concensus has been that the subject is not notable, or at least doesn't appear to be notable to a majority of editors looking into it for review. You appear to be a little too close to this "band" and you may want to step back and let Wikipedia work the way it was intended. This article should be blacklisted, at least in the sense it keeps getting created and then Wiki editors have to hem and haw to get it back off the Main Page when clearly it is not a notable subject by anyone's standards but your own. You may be able to get an article on a music website, but Wiki does not appear to be the place to continue your attempts to have the article included. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The debate about sources and their reliability Bearcat and others have is entirely valid and pertinent, but only toward establishing whether there is sufficient additional notability to warrant a full article over an earned redirect status. I find no requirement in WP:MUSIC that fully meeting additional criteria is necessary for an article status once criteria 10 has been met, only that the entry "may" require it to achieve such status, and no direct indication how this "may" be done, leaving it up to debate.

I have noted two additional criteria that seem to have been met at least in spirit, if not letter, and those achievements are, I believe reliably sourced and sufficiently notable. In combination with the fact that the band has satisfied Criteria 10 not just once but on at least three separate instances seems to me to be more than sufficient to warrant an article. Mpoloukhine (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 6 satisfied
I have added sourcing to confirm Stolt & Reingold were referred to as "band members" for the band's LP, which would I believe achieve notability under WP:MUSIC Criteria 6. That would be two criteria now met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpoloukhine (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete again. nothing much has really changed since last time. a band may be notable if it's been on notable games but given the extreme lack of coverage in independent reliable sources this is not one of them. the amount of times this has been recreated despite no real changes justifies salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not inherited. There appears to be no significant coverage by independent reliable sources, thus it fails WP:MUSIC.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Keep - WP:MUSIC Criteria 10 allows redirect to be earned without additional sourcing. A triple re-direct is not possible, implying satisfaction of Criteria 10 is in this case sufficient notability per WP:MUSIC for a Keep. Salting or Blacklisting suppresses information not contested elsewhere in Wikipedia and is unjustified given redirect is possible.Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Critical examination of the claims and sources shows that this one easily fails WP:MUSIC (again). No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Given the recreation under a different name to avoid salt, the nom makes a persuasive argument for blacklist. Location (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing of apparent note. I've been making and releasing music online since 1999, but I don't have a Wikipedia article because of it. Also, I have to second the blacklist nom as three, four, five times...how many times does the article have to be deleted before the author begins to understand the subject does NOT meet notability requirements, personal arguments aside. Note to Mpoloukhine: there is nothing personal in any of this, simply editors attempting to help you understand how Wikipedia works. This is not subjective, rather a concensus building approach to verifying references and notability. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Delete Pretty obvious case of use of WP by an article subject as a selling tool. Notability doctrine be damned, flacking should be squelched. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (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.