Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CunninLynguists


 * 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   keep. JForget 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

CunninLynguists

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nom - non-notable music group. The article makes a few claims, so I won't just speedily delete it, but every single source is self-published or published by one of the group's labels. If this group was notable, it would have independent sources. Rklawton (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As I pointed out when I removed the totally inappropriate prod from this article, the band's albums have articles here, with at least 19 examples of significant coverage in reliable sources between them. There is a lot more coverage available judging by Google/news/books searches. Clearly WP:BEFORE has not been followed, and the nom appears not to have bothered looking at the album articles either. This group does have a large number of independent sources available and are in fact obviously a notable music group. Given that I deprodded it, speedy deleting it would have been a poor course of action. The listing here includes 'Find sources' links to Google searches - can I suggest that in future carrying out these searches before nominating would be a good idea. --Michig (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see no improvements to this article and only sources that are self-published by the labels. Rather than remove the prod, you should have fixed the article (assuming that's possible). When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems.  Rklawton (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have made at least a minimal effort to establish notability before prodding it, and certainly before bringing it to AFD. I was perfectly entitled to remove the prod from this article without improving it, given that the subject is clearly notable. What do you see when you search on Google Books? Have you even yet looked at the articles on the group's albums to see the examples of coverage there? Judging notability based on what comes out first on a Google search is, frankly, stupid.--Michig (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from participating. It's perfectly reasonable to submit an article for deletion that obviously lacks reliable sources and when other editors appear unable or unwilling to make improvements and when a search terms up the same sort of stuff one gets from a typical garage band. Rather than spend time telling us that our readers are perfectly capable of going to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group (definitely not our policy), perhaps you could take a few minutes to improve the article instead.  Rklawton (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been civil - pointing out your flawed logic is not uncivil. I have tried to assume good faith here, but your actions are looking increasingly WP:POINTy. Right above your nomination there are links for other editors to go "to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group" yet you complain when I suggest you do the same. Please see WP:AFD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" then look at the articles on the group's albums noting all of the examples of significant coverage linked/cited - the article can clearly be fixed through normal editing. Withdrawal would be your best course of action.--Michig (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "stupid" was not civil. I did look through Google, and I didn't see indications of notability.  I did provide an opportunity for editors to improve the article, but none were willing or able.  And it's our readers that we don't ask to Google for better information.  It's our policy that our articles must be reliably sourced, and this one isn't.  The article's claims to notability (if any) still aren't reliably sourced.  If it was as easy to do as you claim, then whey haven't you done it? Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging notability by whatever comes out top in a Google search is ridiculous - I don't think it inappropriate to describe such an approach as 'stupid'. It could take 2-3 hours to go through all available sources and improve the article. I am prepared to do this - though you obviously are not - but don't have time right now. You still haven't indicated whether you have looked at the album articles or at Google Books - why is this? Do you dispute that the group is notable (at least per GNG) and that the article can be fixed? Do you want examples of significant coverage posting here? You can find plenty within the SouthernUnderground, A Piece of Strange, and Dirty Acres articles. The first page of Google Books hits include CMJ New Music Monthly (2005), CMJ New Music Monthly (Dec 2007), and Hip Hop in America: A Regional Guide: Volume 1: East Coast and West Coast by Micky Hess. Here's a link to the band's Allmusic bio.--Michig (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix the article or let it die - your choice. You chose to remove the prod tag, and that wasn't helpful.  The appropriate interpretation of GNG for a music group is only through Notability (music); that's why it's there.  And no, I don't see how acknowledgement that this group exists proves its notability.  Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing a prod tag from a fixable article on a notable subject is most certainly 'helpful'. Your refusal to behave in a constructive manner is not. Take a look at the first criterion of WP:BAND, which is essentially a restatement of GNG and is easily met here via a wealth of significant coverage in reliable sources. You might also wish to take a look at Notability as it is apparent that you don't understand it. When the discussion closes as 'Keep' I'll improve the article. --Michig (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not satisfy BAND, and that's what we're here to discuss. Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But you know damn well that the group satisfies WP:BAND (the guideline applies to subjects of articles) and that the sources exist with which to get the article into that state, which is why your trying to force others to use their time to improve the article via this AFD is so disappointing.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked you before to remain civil, I won't ask again. I will report it.  Rklawton (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think reporting anything here as incivility will get you anywhere then go ahead - I'm confident that any uninvolved admins will struggle to see anything here other than a constructive editor stating the obvious. Making threats, as you did in your PROD nomination and again here, isn't a great way to behave. This is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, maybe you should have a think about that.--Michig (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I've seen mentions of this group in magazines from time to time, but I actually couldn't find any reliable Ghits. (BTW, Michig, calm down. It isn't inappropriate just because someone doesn't agree with you.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not see all the reviews in the group's album articles, which are unquestionably significant coverage in reliable sources? I am calm, by the way, just increasingly disappointed with Rklawton's behaviour.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only A Piece of Strange appears to be referenced -- by reviews, which aren't reliable sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The magazines in which the reviews appear are reliable sources. The reviews themselves are significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. Read WP:INHERITED. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what point you're making here. Musical groups perform live and make records - coverage of musical groups generally constitutes features, live reviews and record reviews, and as is the case here, coverage in books. --Michig (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that when I Googled for that album, for example, I found reviews about it and nothing else. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that their appearance in magazines may be overstated. Most of these were from the period 2003-2007 when the group employed a publicist to spread their name around, as evidenced by the number of links to old articles on their myspace page, which have recently been removed, unfortunately. Since then, they have leaned more on 'internet buzz' through hip-hop forums and websites.Mathesoneon (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus, a Google search is probably more valid. However, Rklawton's claim that 'When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems' is completely and utterly ridiculous, as searching any music artist regardless of fame in Google will return the myspace and wikipedia pages as the top results - with an occasional official artist website slipping in the top 3, or more rarely, an unofficial fan page. TRY IT. Finally, I find it necessary to add that Rklawton's actions and words indicate to me that the user seems to be driven to eliminating this page regardless of evidence pertaining to the notability of the group which is in circulation. Personally, I would love to compile the sources necessary to fix up the article and those of the albums/mixtapes but I am in the middle of exams for my final year at university so I will not have the time to spare until mid-May. Keep Mathesoneon (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a good example of an article that needed improvement rather than deletion, but these days it appears that the best way to draw the necessary attention is to do an AfD. So be it. But not all AfD discussions have to end in a decision to delete, and should not end that way if the process inspires other editors to improve the article accordingly. That is what has happened here, and the nominator should acknowledge subsequent developments. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear keep, , . Did this really need to come to AfD? Hobit (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "KNO OF CUNNINLYNGUISTS" By Jake Iacovetta in Remix, 1 February 2008, Volume 10; Number 2. Dirty Acres (APOS Music) review (1 paragraph) in Remix, 1 December 2007, Volume 9; Number 12. "CUNNINLYNGUISTS MAKE THEIR WAY TO SANTA FE" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 12 May 2006. "MOVIE (sic) REVIEW: 'A PIECE OF STRANGE' HELPS CUNNINLYNGUISTS TURN CORNER" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 10 February 2006. (note for last two, Pablo Paz is a senior at Santa Fe High.) duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The sources contained within the article show that the group easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clicking the Google News search link at the top of the AFD finds 138 results! They are clearly notable.  Always use Google news search BEFORE nominating something or stating it should be deleted.  It saves the rest of us a lot of time, and prevents something notable from being deleted by accident.   D r e a m Focus  00:26, 18 April 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.