Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back of a Car


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Back of a Car

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. No awards or charted songs. The article is sourced by personal interviews with non-notable bloggers, and brief mentions in non-notable online magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: appears to fail WP:BAND to me, but even if this is kept, I still doubt that this band gets as many search hits as the Big Star song of the same name, so at the very least a hatnote would need to be added to point to Radio City (album). Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would argue that this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion. I disagree that it fails WP:BAND in that it meets points 1 and 4 with at least two of the article's sources. This band is definitely obscure, however, but I don't think that it merits deletion. I agree with Richard3120 and their comments regarding adding a hatnote to the Big Star song.Thisistheworst (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I do not think this article should be deleted just because the band is not considered popular. The sources given in the article are independent but not trivial.Matdaviesuk (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I also wanted to add that I looked over a few other articles of bands from New Mexico, namely Polo Urias and The Eyeliners, and noticed that both of those articles have very few secondary sources. In fact, the Polo Urias article has no secondary sources and none of the information on the article is cited. I also note that the Polo Urias article lacks an encyclopedic tone and reads like an advertisement for the artist. While the Eyeliners article has one Allmusic reference, the other two are from non-notable sources. My explanation is not to advocate for the aforementioned articles' deletion, but just to state that given the mass volume of information available on wikipedia that sometimes articles are a work in progress and I believe the Back of a Car article should be no different. The article should be allowed inclusion and worked on at the very least, just as the other two articles I noted should be allowed inclusion.Thisistheworst (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - After a WP:BEFORE search I was unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this band. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, and they will be ready for an article in a few years after some substantial reviews are published. The sourcing is weak, and not significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. How this article stands up to others is not relevant to this discussion because OTHERSTUFF. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Responding to the comment regarding OTHERSTUFF above. The other articles mentioned above are especially important regarding the current article because logical consistency is necessary for any body of work; otherwise the information just devolves into circular reasoning. I think that the keep/delete arguments being made in this discussion are an example of the ongoing debate between Inclusionism vs Deletionism. I think it's important to remember Jimmy Wale's words here - "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing". I admit that the band is obscure but they certainly meet the (arbitrary) criteria of WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO.Thisistheworst (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please understand that AfD is a process of consensus, it is not a war between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". We are all volunteers who are invested in improving the encyclopedia; in other words we are all on the same team. There is no reason to polarize the process and assume that an editor who disagrees with you is out to disrupt free access to human knowledge. I am guessing that you have stereotyped me as a "deletionist" because I !voted delete, however if you look at my AfD stats over the years, I'm about 50-50; and a content creator that actively improved many articles on notable subjects that have been nominated for deletion. The nominator,  is a very experienced editor who has created over 300 articles; they would not nominate an article on a cavalier whim. AfD discussions are supposed to focus on policy and guidelines, not on other editors. What might help your position is to clearly state which of the criteria of WP:BAND/MUSICBIO this band meets, backed up with independent, verifiable reliable sources, because I'm failing to find that: citation 1 is a blog and interview therefore not RS nor independent; 2 is an interview in a blog and a primary source that is not independent of the artist; 3 does not mention the band at all; 4 is a digital streaming song purchasing site; 5 is another download site with a long quotation by the artist (another primary source); 6 is a short profile in a blog, but is an independent source and a little better than 1 & 2, however the content isn't in-depth significant coverage; 7 is a music purchasing site. None of these meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Criteria #1 for WP:BAND/MUSICBIO states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." and criteria #4 states "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." There are no reviews in reliable sources, no awards, no charting songs, no notable albums, no gold records, no international/national tours, no major record labels, no notable musicians, etc. With all due respect for your efforts, I cannot understand how notability can be conferred. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please understand that it was not my intention to insinuate that you are of a particular editing "ideology", if you will. Apologies if I offended you. I brought that aspect up simply to illustrate the manner in which this article was nominated for deletion. Your comments were particularly helpful and engaging. In my opinion, the sources cited on this article speak for themselves and I feel that this article is a good contribution to wikipedia. With that being said, and though I feel this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion, Wikipedia's notability criteria for WP:BAND is epistemologically incoherent. Given the current state of the music industry, most artists can't/won't meet that criteria for the entirety of their careers. Due to economic factors, much of music journalism is also simply a tool for PR. Can we honestly say that bands are not worth learning about simply because they do not pander to PR reps and journalists and do not reach a widespread audience? At this rate wikipedia is going to be an extremely poor resource for music history in the coming years.Thisistheworst (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , No offense taken. It's frustrating and disappointing when an article one has created or worked on is deleted, however that is the nature of this project. It's an encyclopedia, it's not a place to promote or advertise the things one "likes" or oneself, or something one is directly connected to, that is what social media is for. WP strives to be neutral and non-personal - that is how the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia is maintained. I appreciate your efforts, as I do the efforts of creative artists in general, however at this time this band does not, in any regard, meet our criteria for notability, not GNG, nor BAND, nor any other general or specific notability requirements. It's too soon for this band to have an article in the encyclopedia. That does not mean that there is not a place for indy bands or obscure topics, there is, but their importance needs to be established in verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS.) The guidelines and policies, while they may seem random, were in fact established through the dynamic process of discussions and consensus between editors around the world over many years. The guidelines/policies exist for a reason. My honest suggestion, which I hope you don't take the wrong way, is that the band should make (or hire/trade with someone to make) a great website for themselves, and self-promote that way. I don't know what the final outcome of this AfD will be; that is for the closing administrator to decide, but I feel strongly that the encyclopedia should not be used as a substitute PR rep just because it's free and "anyone can edit." Artists always figure out a way to survive and thrive because we are inventive and contribute to the culture in ways that no one has ever thought about before. And we just keep making stuff for the duration of our lives because we can. If the article is deleted, try again in a few years, but in the meantime, edit what you love but are not directly connected to (if that makes sense). That's the best advice I can give for now. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that if you want to start a discussion about the perceived fairness of inclusion criteria, there are discussion boards here for that sort of thing. A place to start might be to ask at the TeaHouse or Help Desk where the best place to discuss notability for bands might be. Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Both of those articles linked have never been considered for deletion as far as I can see. One band doesn't seem to have any charted songs either.  makes a compelling case for inclusion. If wikipedia is meant to encompass such a vast array of knowledge, then the article in discussion warrants inclusion. Researching also shows this band has had several national tours with many bands with more notoriety. In the punk world bands go years and years without mainstream exposure.  also makes a good point with WP:TOOSOON. But inclusion is the way here. Harmlessactor (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have opened this SPI regarding User:Matdaviesuk and User:Harmlessactor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2021 (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.