Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Order


 * 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) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Inverse Order

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to fail WP:BAND. Provided refs are just reviews of their CD, no actual articles ABOUT the band. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I had originally speedy deleted this article, and it was recreated. The arguments used on my talk page for keeping the article (and my responses to them) are shown below:
 * Has won or been nominated for a major music award (major in New Zealand - Juice TV Music Video award not sure if this counts?)
 * I would not count this as a major music award. Juice TV is mainly received in the Auckland area - there were plans to "to get Juice TV broadcasting free-to-air on a UHF network that covered most metropolitan and many regional centres across New Zealand. ... The plan did not happen." (to quote from the Juice TV article). The major NZ music award which is internationally recognised are the New Zealand Music Awards
 * Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network in NZ- KiwiFM and The Rock FM
 * I could find no evidence (other than blogs, etc written by the band) that Kiwi FM or The Rock FM had the band in their national rotation.
 * They have also charted in the top 40 of the New Zealand rock radio charts
 * This was the one which gave me slight pause! The official source of the NZ charts is the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. The cited source in the article is the RadioScope chart - but this chart only counts for 75% of the official figures (the remainder being from airplay) - and the single was at position 40 for two weeks on the RadioScope chart - they did not chart on the RIANZ official charts (see here).
 * Overall, I do not see that they meet WP:BAND, hence my delete --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See talk page for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJeems (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded there, and advise MrJeems to comment on this page rather than the talk page of the article itself --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Radioscope
 * I'm finding it hard to see how any band can prove they were playlisted on a radio station. Looking at a few other similar band pages none of them offer real references to this.  The way I see it, the band ranking in the top 40 of the Radioscope Rock charts - a chart used to rank radio airplay - would imply that significant amounts of radio play were achieved? And this could only really be achieved through national radio play - as smaller stations don't have enough listeners to make much of a dent on the charts.
 * Also, I'm still unsure as to what constitutes a relevant reference in terms of online articles. Would an article on the website of a national news provider count? Or an old article in a Local newspaper?  It seems to me like there is plenty of stuff out there, its just a matter of presenting it in a way that Wikipedia accepts.  Any help would be appreciated.

'MrJeems - talk - contributions 15:40, 13 August 2010 (+12 GMT)
 * Actually, you have it the wrong way round - the Radioscope Rock charts do not signify airplay, but purchases - the fact that they charted at number 40 for two weeks shows that they made enough sales; to get into the NZ official charts, you need to have the airplay as well, which there is no evidence of, as they did not make the official chart, only the Radioscope one. Oops, I got it the wrong way round! Also, if enough criteria are met, not all of them need to be proved - national playlisting can indeed be hard to prove (unless, for example, The New Zealand Herald had an article about them which included a mention along the lines of "... and their single xyz was featured on the national playlist for 3 weeks...").
 * Correction - the Radioscope charts do indeed show that they got enough airplay - but they didn't chart because that only counts for 25% of the official chart rating - the remaining 75% is through sales. However, the criteria state Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network - my understanding of RadioScope is that they look at the airplay by the local as well as national stations - there are 25 nationals, about 100 locals (excluding Maori language stations) - As I stated above, I could find no evidence that the nationals had played them, and I think that it is possible to reach #40 by airplay on the locals only.
 * The 3 News article looked promising, but I notice that the writer (in February this year) says they "are still relatively unknown. They’re in that all too familiar limbo, like so many other Kiwi bands and artists, just waiting for their big break." - this does not appear to be the wording about a band who meets the criteria for inclusion! Also, the fact that this is about a gig at a pub does not meet WP:BAND criteria 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
 * I must admit that the North Shore Times article reference is a surprise - the majority of their 75,000 household readership are in the 35-64 age range! However, that article appears to be about them winning a local competition, which I do not think will meet Wikipedia's criteria.
 * Overall, unless evidence can be produced that they meet WP:BAND's criteria for inclusion (and at the moment, I personally do not feel that they meet that standard) then I do not feel that the band is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry on Wikipedia at this time. I will leave more detailed notes on your talk page --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — fetch ·  comms   18:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * DeleteSeems no more notable than any number of other similar acts. Inclusion seems more like an attempt to gain/promote notability than record pre-existing notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:41, 22 August 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.