Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Scale


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Full Scale

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to fail notability, is promotional in tone. Their only claim to fame appears to have been supporting several acts in Australia, then spectacularly failing, well outside the glare of any media or press which would constitute an RS. Orderinchaos 06:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Orderinchaos 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the coverage in independent reliable sources is good enough for wp:n. (including "Colour, Light, Movement, Sound!"). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Australian, "Full scale in the US, for all intense and purposes" by Sophie Tedmanson, 1 November 2004. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not in "The Australian", it was in a magazine liftout from the newspaper, which is more "lifestyle" in focus and not subject to the same editing constraints as the main newspaper (which speaks to WP:RS). I had read the article when deciding whether to AfD or not (I have Factiva access) and decided it was entirely promotional in tone - the sort of thing an agent can get done for you with enough money. The fact that this is the only article about them in a 7 year career (ironically the lead singer's new band has received significantly more media attention), and that they've never had a charting album or hit (even Top 100) either here or stateside is more relevant. Orderinchaos 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You knew about an article in a liftout produced by The Australian and claimed they were "outside the glare of any media or press which would constitute an RS"???
 * Success or lack of is only one possible part of notability. Charting is not needed. (ps look up what irony actually is) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A single promo piece in a component magazine (which, btw, does not constitute an RS for this purpose - read WP:RS) is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (straight from WP:N), considering they had a 7 year career. Apart from their apparent belief in themselves, they seem to be entirely indistinguishable from literally hundreds of other bands in Perth. Orderinchaos 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way does it not constitute an RS. In what way is Kerrang, Beat Magazine and AAP General News not RS. How is the Australian component magazine article simply a promo piece. As to the bands notability past the coverage shown, Triple J (national radio station) appear to have placed them in rotation, a clear claim to fame beyond the nominations claim (although a independent source needs to V that), also playing live on Triple J . The claim of fame being supporting several acts in Australia is the nominators reading and is not relevent to wp:music. They have also played with acts outside Australia, see [Full Scale Heist]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If these sources exist, then the article should be rewritten around them. The Beat Magazine link, for example, is dead. Orderinchaos 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources do not need to be available online (replacement link ). Dead tree sources are good enough (and are kept by the national library. . duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) More on nominators claim that "Their only claim to fame appears to have been supporting several acts in Australia". The Australian article that nominator had read talks of a gig in the USA, contridicting the claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've played a gig in Canada (I'm Australian) - does that make me notable? I doubt it somehow, especially given the number in the audience :) It's not in dispute that following their distinct lack of success here they thought they'd try it on in Hollywood, and for whatever reason broke up there. It would be assumed that somewhere in between, they played at least once. Orderinchaos 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Parent band, Full Scale Deflection, is in Spencer's Who's Who in Australian Rock (ref now supplied in article). Mammal and Ezekiel the Ox are in there too. Hence the band is notable enough. Certainly the article has tone / pov issues but that's not sufficient for deletion.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage appears to be sufficient for Mammal (band) from what I can determine, but I am struggling to find anything else at all beyond the promo piece that would constitute "significant/independent coverage" for Full Scale. What are the listing requirements for Spencer? I know for example that a listing in the regular annual Who's Who in Australia does not count as independent sourcing as the information is usually supplied by the individual or their agent. Orderinchaos 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage for Mammal is irelevent and more than sufficient (charted). Spencers requirements appear to be less than wp:music so listing itself not good enough although listing is based on independent sources. The listing can provide evidence of further coverage depending on what it says. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The on-line version of Spencer's book is self-decribed here and the ref entry on FULL SCALE DEFLECTION (FSD) leads to entries on, Ezekiel the Ox] which leads to Mammal. FSD entry also leads to [Kelly, Rob who was a member of WAX TADPOLE (released at least three CDs). FSD also leads to Savell, Forrester] who has worked with Shannon Noll, Human Nature and other bands. The upshot of all this is that FSD is notable because it has two (or more) members who were themselves notable.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Both Chris Frey (another member of FSD) and Forrester are notable per here where they won a West Australian Film Institute award for work on a short film. This article further reinforces Forrester's notability as the record producer for Butterfly Effect. Clearly the parent band of all these notable persons is itself notable.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frey more: Frey was a nominee for 2009 J Awards per here which adds to his notability as a video director for Karnivool. The article on FSD needs re-writing and these notables should be in the Lead however the articl should not be deleted because of poor formatting.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 05:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that "notability is inherited" is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Forrester may be notable, Frey may be notable, but is the band notable? One does not automatically flow to the other. At the end of this AfD, should it pass, I will be stubbing the article and expecting those here to rewrite it. Orderinchaos 06:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However consider WP:BAND and particularly criterion #6: Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, I'm assuming that Ezekiel Ox is notable (no AfD there), are you arguing that neither Forrester nor Frey is notable? If either is independently notable (which I believe and have supplied refs for above) then according to criterion #6 FSD is notable and thus so is FS.
 * If the article is saved from deletion and subsequently stubbed by you then I'm expecting your input in helping to rewrite it: we should be working together to make wikipedia better.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 08:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would see stubbing the content as improving the encyclopaedia, which was my original reason for nominating for deletion. The reason for my activity on this article was that this article was pointed out to me by a Western Australian non-Wikipedian active in the music scene who used it as evidence that Wikipedia is unreliable and a vehicle for self-promotion. I found that quite sad, given my own efforts to improve the quality of political and local government topics here. (Same points have been made at various intervals to me about articles in the Home & Away / Neighbours / etc category.) I then searched my available sources, including Factiva, and found very, very little indeed. If others have sources (I don't - otherwise I would have fixed it myself rather than nominated) which can help in writing a decent short article about the band that meets Wiki criteria, I'm all for it and would even withdraw this nomination if that were the case. Certainly if someone wants access to something which is in a WA library (either university or state library) I'm happy to get it. Orderinchaos 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I have seemed a little short, by the way - it is our fifth day of ~40° maximums and ~25° minimums, and the house's air conditioner is now failing to combat it - it's 28.6°C in my room as we speak. Orderinchaos 09:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. One problem is that we'll get your weather in about 2-3 days, grrrrr... BTW, I've already started cleaning-up the article and supplying refs as I go.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I've looked into all the references and I've looked through the article, and I simply can't establish the band's notability. There is neither sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources nor sufficient claim of significance. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment please note the statement "I would see stubbing the content as improving the encyclopaedia, which was my original reason for nominating for deletion" from the nominator. Sounds like a bad nomination. AFDs are not for cleanup. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern here is the band's notability, not the nominator's intentions. If the band is not notable, it doesn't really matter what the nominator's intentions were; the article should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think duff may have misunderstood my intent. I wished to have the article deleted, not to have it cleaned up. I saw the article being gone as improving the encyclopaedia (for exactly the reasons I stated in my nom). My other comments acknowledged the reality that it hadn't gone WP:SNOW delete as I had expected when nominating, so I was stating what I would do if it was kept. Orderinchaos 15:46, 9 March 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.