Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass Player's 100 Greatest Bass Players


 * 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. Notability not established. Note that FaceBook may exceptionally be used to source information about subjects themselves, meaning that FaceBook mentions do not convey any notability (editorial control and such, see WP:RS). Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Bass Player's 100 Greatest Bass Players

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on a special issue of a magazine, Bass Player, itself a possible subject for deletion. There are many "lists of greatest bass players" to be found when trying to find sources to support this article (so I am attempting to satisfy WP:BEFORE but thus far nothing usable has come up. Article creator has said this is analogous to similar best of lists put out by Rolling Stone and NME, but those are long-standing, influential publications, and their special issue "list of" issues have been the subject of reliable source coverage. This one has not.  The issue itself, would be fine to use as a source for other articles, but to have an article for itself, I just don't see the justification. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a bit of a puzzle saying what notability this fails. It appears there are no independent reliable sources that have coverage of this articles subject article.  Fails general and WP:NBOOK.  Articles not in some exception category require significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't agree with argument made for deletion. NME & RS cited as "long-standing, influential publications." Bass Player is in print almost 30 years. How do we define influential? All 3 mags are notable and influential to the audience they are intended for; NME & RS widely regarded in rock music world, BP widely regarded in bass world (all musical genres, not just rock). Also, a quick Google search on NME Greatest Bass Players does not appear to reveal any more significant independent reliable source coverage than Bass Player's. I can add some of those sources to article if needed for consensus. Rsooch (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , the article currently has two references and one external link. All of them lead to the same source: Base Player magazine. That's not independent coverage. The point made above by ValarianB is that the other publications "list of" issues have been the subject of coverage by independent reliable sources while no independent coverage of this list has been identified.  So, if you can, certainly it would be helpful for you to at least identify significant independent coverage by reliable sources here before this Afd closes. Gab4gab (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'll edit article to include independent coverage. Please note that all 5 external links on NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time lead back to NME, and 2 of the 5 references also lead back to NME. By that standard, I'll update BP article to include at least 3 reliable independent references... please hold off deletion for now. Rsooch (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Independent coverage seems to be only references to the fact that specific players made this particular list, for example Beta Entertainment or Yamaha Group and several others, but none seem to address the actual premise of the article itself. I was under the impression that a published list by a widely regarded publication could warrant an article based purely on the publication's influence, but will defer to my dissenting Wiki editors here if consensus is for deletion. I'm in agreement with ValarianB that the magazine issue itself would be fine to use as a source for other articles, and therefore those who made the list could have a mention of their Bass Player's list ranking in their own Wiki articles. Would like opinions on this as well. Rsooch (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMIRROR, and this article is about a point of view of one magazine. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , This is not a mirror (replica of another), any more than NME's list is a mirror of Rolling Stone's. Since NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is also the point of view of one magazine, this doesn't seem to be an argument for deletion. Rsooch (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a link to one particular magazine article and that's it. The depth of coverage is nowhere near enough to be notable, not even close to the Rolling Stone magazines. Ajf773 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , How do we define "depth of coverage"? Quantitatively? NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time lists only two independent reliable sources of coverage out of the 10 references & links listed, with all others pointing back to NME. Also, consider this Wiki article: Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century which lists no independent coverage, so what is its notability based on? It appears the influence of the publication may factor in, and should. Rsooch (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the notability guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added category "Magazine articles" and additional citation to BP article. Would like other opinions here. Another example of a Wiki magazine list article: Financial Times Global 500 Rsooch (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering this statement from Notability: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article". Here are some additional sources:

http://www.radioswissjazz.ch/en/music-database/musician/577504634b313264d4293560d3b452efef7a94/biography https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBrandX/photos/pb.1715531621998359.-2207520000.1488568923./1832603373624516/?type=3 https://www.talkbass.com/threads/the-100-greatest-bass-players.1262596/ http://www.betatinz.com/2017/03/richard-bona-named-among-100-most.html https://www.facebook.com/Oteil/posts/10155756224914057 http://shorefire.com/releases/entry/nathan-easts-new-album-reverence-streaming-on-allmusic http://www.mtdguitars.com/news/2017/1/10/february-loves-andrew-gouch Rsooch (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Facebook is NOT a reliable source and the others are questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just going to make one last comment here, and then will defer to my fellow editors on decision. Regarding the reliability of Facebook as a source, here is the specific Wiki guideline from Identifying Reliable Sources, listed under Exceptions in section header Self-published sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field... these requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." The criteria / requirements are listed in the section, feel free to read. The two FB sources I listed above are from self-published pages of two players on the 100 Greatest list, and whose comments would seem to verify the notability of the list (the subject of this page's article). Perhaps others would care to weigh in on this discussion so we can make a determination? Rsooch (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to Rsooch you cannot make a vote more than once. Ajf773 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Rsooch (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (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.