Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.I.A. (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

M.I.A. (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was kept after barely surviving previous Afd, based on it allegedly meeting two criteria of WP:Band, however the article in its current state does not establish notability with mostly primary sources used as references. These do Not meet WP:RS. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Apparently appearing on a couple of compillations and allmusic is not enough to establish notabity here, and I recommend deletion. Even after clean up, external links (not satisfyling WP:RS) provided mention a member, not about the band or their achievements. Whilst noting that attempts have been made to improve the article, it still fails most all criteria for WP:Band and unlike the first Afd, this could really benefit from wider ranging views ShimShem (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Band is notable with multiple commercial recordings on notable labels. References are plentiful in the article. Sources are reliable journalists who have covered the music industry for years. Don't accept one person's opinion of whether a particular Wikipedia guideline has been met; read the guideline and decide for yourself. People who are at all knowledgeable about punk rock know that this was a significant band, as evidenced, for example, by the outpouring of support at the recent fundraisers given to benefit the children of the late Mike Conley. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looking at the original afd, the vote ended up being 6-0 for keep. That's not "narrowly" surviving. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. This article has gone through afd before, six months ago, and so clearly it is not just one person's opinion that its sources (all either primary,/ non RS or from one publication allmusic) do not assert notability. It fails to establish notability through multiple reliable sources and fails nearly every criteria of WP:Band. Your view that it fulfils a couple of criteria on WP:Band (albeit barely) doesn't automatically warrant a keep. I note that you took part in the previous Afd, and it clearly appears you are a fan of the band, but in its current state, in my view, the article does not meet wikipedia's guidelines. I think enough time has lapsed to find more reliable sources to establish the band's notablity for the article but at this time, they arent' present/forthcoming. ShimShem (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Needs improvement, not deletion. This is obviously notable, and there are plenty of reliable sources. A search for "M.I.A. punk band" on Google brings up 4,350,000 results (seriously). — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment looking through the search most are blog mentions or referring to other individuals/musicians and not this band. Six months have passed to improve this article. Please include relevant sources that are reliable. Also, as shown here the person proposing deletion at the time of closing afd1 recommended that the "case may well benefit from wider comment."ShimShem (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Here's a few sources which make this notable (in addition to the fact this article meets WP:Band notability guidelines):
 * http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2008/02/29/news/dpt-conleyobitweb.txt
 * http://expn.go.com/expn/story?id=3363587
 * http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/09/27/Arts/Mia-HipHop.Or.Punk-3000526.shtml
 * I think you are forgetting that this band was short-lived, and was around a long time ago. As such, finding reliable sources online is very hard. But finding information from local sources from Orange County archives might prove more successful. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful - that last story is about a different MIA. The second one might be worth adding. There are far more secondary sources in the article than there were last January, even so. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. It seems there are a lot of MIAs. But as I already said, finding sources online is very hard since this is a small, short-lived "indie" band from the 80s. Using archives from the local area will yield more results, I think. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The band definitely toured the US and Canada in 1984-5 (WP:BAND), there will be plenty of paper-based gig reviews etc. out there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I think we might be getting somewhere. Apart from you admitting you have no reliable sources to back up your claims, the one's you've just included on the article are still not reliable. I'm looking for a larger consensus on this than just punk rock fans that's all. Looking at their "discography" based on the sources band's website you've provided, one album and a re-release have been issued on Alternative Tentacles which you claim is notable, and neither refer to the band as M.I.A. One recording says "M.I.A" and another on the label says "MIA". If this article does survive per allegedly meeting Cat 5, which you haven't proven it does, and I don't agree it does, at the very least, its title should reflect this.ShimShem (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to assume bad faith here, but your obvious desperation to delete this article despite it clearly being notable (and now to change its name) makes me suspicious. Would it be anything to do with your interest in Tamil subjects, and hence M.I.A. (artist)?  Because I can't see any other reason now. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, the reasoning, as I've listed above, is far more self-explanatory, as is your clear attempt to not address the concerns I've listed but bring in something irrelevant into the discussion. ShimShem (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ShimShem, EXPN is definitely reliable, as part of the ESPN network. As already stated above, the Internet is *not* the place to look for reliable sources. You can't simply pop up reliable sources in 5 minutes - You have to look in archives and spend some real time researching, since this is an old band that hasn't had anything said about it for a long time. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only person bringing irrelevancies into this, such as the spelling of the band's name, is the nominator. Those "concerns" are not relevant to the the only issue that is being discussed here - whether the band is notable. By Wikipedia policy, it is, just as it was last January. The fact that you are still claiming there are no reliable sources, despite the fact there are a number in the article, are what led me to suspect a different motive for the nomination. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok wackymacks. Assuming for a second that source is reliable, what is the source establishing? The band's notablilty or a member's notability? How does it establish the band's notability? It doesn't, it refers to a deceased member. per WP:Biography or WP:Band it simply doesn't meet the requirements. Do the differences between the sources influence the band's notablity on wiki? I honestly ask this in good faith. How does the label refer to the band? Is the label notable? Reliable sources are required to establish notability is what I've read. Until then, it should be noted that it appears unnotable at the very least. 6 months is a while to find rs which is why I thought to nominate it again. If you honestly believe enough reliable sources are forthcoming to establish what you yourself describe as a small indie band from the '80s, then at the least, take into consideration my queries and recommendations.ShimShem (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Besides passing WP:Band (even the nom admits this), it's an iconic punk band in the California punk scene. --Oakshade (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. Only needs to pass 1 of the 12 criteria, which it does.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is the view of people saying it does meet a notablilty guideline, wishing to keep it that I'm highlighting is not backed up by multiple varied reliable sources. It fails Category 5, as I fail to see how the label is notable either. Those articles also have references issues. If it is established, then we can take it from there. ShimShem (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't know how Alternative Tentacles is notable, you probably shouldn't be nominating music-related articles for deletion, frankly. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it fails Guideline 5, as it has not released two albums on said label as explained below. ShimShem (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep not only passes WP:MUSIC, but also #6 (Daly and Arnold were in Big Drill Car) and will definitely pass #4 (nationwide concert tours, but I think any refs for this will be tricky to find on the net). Having said that, nominating an article which easily sailed through AFD only 6 months ago and has been improved since then (most of the references are NOT primary any more) seems fairly pointless to me. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You haven't demonstrated how it meets those other criteria, you haven't provided reliable sources to back up your assertions, and I agree with the WP:Band guidelines that in cases where you say they may be met, a redirect would be far more appropriate. ShimShem (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely notable. Also, the nominator's assertion that the article "barely survived AfD" is obviously inaccurate. Even the point that the AfD's existence shows that "it is not just one person's opinion that its sources ... do not assert notability" is flawed, as the first nomination was withdrawn. Maxamegalon2000 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a consensus building exercise. Not a vote. Please explain how it meets notability guidelines.


 * Keep same as I voted last time. They meet WP:MUSIC criterion #4 by releasing music on Alternative Tentacles (OK the keep voters haven't actually told the nom why the label is notable. They released music by Dead Kennedys - who's former singer Jello Biafra owns the label, Butthole Surfers and The Melvins all of which have charting singles and albums in the UK and/or US. This makes the label a notable independant label). The allmusic guide entry features a biography and several reviews. It could certainly use some more reliable sources, but the band passes WP:MUSIC (you don't need to pass EVERY critereon, just one). Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok DocStrange. Thank You. It might meet one criterion for now, but that label's notability must be established on that article. And I certainly agree with you, both articles could use more reliable sources if there are any. Alternative Tentacles' page for the band lists them as MIA - Does anyone have problems with the article being moved to the page MIA (band) while more sources are found?ShimShem (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I've just noticed is that the label Alternative Tentacles credits just one album to MIA that they've released on their official page in the bottom right, the others being compilation appearances.ShimShem (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AT releases are Murder in a Foreign Place (VIRUS035) and Lost Boys (VIRUS258)  which contains the first album, plus 20-something other tracks. The reason only the latter is on the AT website is because the former is out of print. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:It fails this criteria as they have not released two albums on the said label, one is clearly an EP of the other. ShimShem (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) It would also be helpful if maintainers could include reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the label on the label's page. I see a list of performers, but no refs. Which ones released music on the label that charted, are notable etc. with refs. ShimShem (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are 410 items from Google Books - the first page is mostly published discographies but there are more interesting entries later on. Page 225-226 of Roy Shuker's Understanding Popular Music for instance is a good coverage of the Alternative Tentacles obscenity trial controversy. The Alternative Tentacles article is poor, and almost entirely unreferenced, I'll try to make some improvements today. --Stormie (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question. I'm not sure what the rules are (and like any good punker I hate rules anyway), but don't you have to assume that Alternative Tentacles is notable, since it has its own Wikipedia article? Only if you got that deleted (and good luck with that!) could you make that claim. Gaohoyt (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - the notability of the record label doesn't have to be established on that article at all. That's like saying a footballer is notable because he plays for Manchester United, and then having to explain why the team is notable. Any such notability should be established in the record label's article (and if it's got an article, it's very probably notable anyway). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one's asking anyone to establish the label's notability on the band's article. The label's article itself has a big template listing multiple issues currently wrong with the article which is what I was talking about. The prose says the band MIA released an EP Murder in a Foreign Place in 1984 on the label in its prose section. I'm moving the article to MIA (band) for now. ShimShem (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are reliable sources (such as All Music Guide) on this band, and are not mentioned trivially. Check all the inline refrences in the article and comment later. Again, I propose that all notability guidelines be abolished. --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment the nom has changed the name of the article to MIA (band) for no apparent reason that I can see. (Edit) Actually, his further creation of M I A and its redirection to M.I.A. (artist) shows that the claim that I made above is exactly correct, and so I have moved this article back. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I really hope this debate moves a little outside diehard punk rock fans of this act with apparently little knowledge of wikipedia. That notable artist is also credited as such on her album, so it was moved to that article. What is this act credited as on the sleeve of its LP on the label being used to assert its notability here? MIA . What does the label call the band? MIA. What does this recently added popmatters review of its one album call it? The same. Read WP:Naming conventions and WP:Assume good faith. ShimShem (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and even though this has little to do with the debate in question, I've just found that even the label Alternative Tentacles at the bottom of this page differentiates between its band (as MIA) and the artist (as M.I.A.). That in itself warrants the name change to MIA (band). ShimShem (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that "I really hope this debate moves a little outside diehard punk rock fans" comment seriously asserting that it's a bad thing for a deletion debate to feature opinions from people knowledgeable about a topic? Doesn't Wikipedia have a bad enough reputation from "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" deletions already? --Stormie (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is important to include multiple non-trivial sources to warrant an article's existence here, otherwise we have nothing but what a particular group of people affiliated with a particular scene claim they've heard of. If those sources aren't present, the article should be changed to reflect what most reliable sources specifically on the band describe it as, which is what I've tried to do but have had my head bitten off for, or deleted. There are hardly any reliable sources on that article, and this seriously warrants a deletion. ShimShem (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the grounds of two releases on Alternative Tentacles, which is pretty much a textbook example of what WP:MUSIC means by "one of the more important indie labels". --Stormie (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:Bold - And of the preceding line "two or more albums..." of the guideline? Does that mean any recordings or just LPs? Does that include what allmusic and the AT label describe as an EP? One the label didn't see fit to include in its list of releases at the bottom of its page? As far as I can see they've released one album on it. ShimShem (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who defines an EP? Murder in a Foreign Place has 11 tracks, and AllMusic lists under "Main Albums." And you've already been told that AT don't list it in their summary because it's out of print - it is mentioned in the page you linked, scroll down to 1984 and see "Murder in a Foreign Place EP, Alternative Tentacles (VIRUS 35)." --Stormie (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide reliable third party sources that say that is the reason they don't list it. I'm afraid all I'm reading is WP:Original research with nothing but an Allmusic article and the label page that says an MIA release in 1984 on AT is an EP and not an LP, which clearly fails what the guideline 5 on WP:Music is referring to with the word "albums", and a label and popmatters review of the band's Lost Boys LP in 2001 that calls the band MIA. Assuming the label is notable, I still don't see how an allmusic article on said band, as I stated in my nom, is enough to establish any of the criteria for wiki notability.ShimShem (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: ok currently we have as sources the labels bio of the band which is not a third party source, two primary sources and, a popmatters and allmusic review of one "MIA" LP Lost Boys, (which popmatters describes as a "compillation"), a blog and two sources concerned with the death of a member, and not specifically about the band. ,  and . We have one allmusic bio  that is the only source specifically on the band that could be an rs and that's it, but even its naming of the band has been discredited. An EP does not qualify as an album here, it fails criteria 5 of WP:Band, and all other criteria currently, and rather than arguing for its notability over a technicality, I think it would make much more sense to create an article for Mike Conley and move whatever information from reliable third party sources present to that article and redirect this page there. MIA can be mentioned on that page, although I don't know how long that article would survive either. That is my suggested compromise for now, based on what I've been given to work with.ShimShem (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not going to attempt a point by point rebutal, but I think we need to look at the big picture. Agreed by all (I believe) we have a 3rd party bio, a review of a 30+ song album by a notable indie label, and an article about the death of the lead singer, and within that article it discusses the notable (small n) activity of the band, including the fact that it toured in the US and Canada.  Guidelines are just that, guides to help us answer the question is it notable.  IMHO the totality of the picture is that the band's Notable (capital N).--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the bigger picture, to me it just seems like the band is mentioned in passing on articles about Mike Conley, who could be Notable (big N) enough to warrant a page. I know this is getting long, but the band really doesn't meet Criteria 4 of WP:Band either which asks for non-trivial coverage of a national or international tour. IMHO, I don't see how or think the notability of the band MIA has been established.ShimShem (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply In regards to the question MIA or Mike Conley, I see it in the reverse that you do. His notability is largely based on his membership in the band.  The article on his death is focused on the fact that the singer of MIA had passed.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yeah I know and I don't see it that way, considering the articles concern themselves with explaining who Mike Conley was as well what MIA was, but largely focus on what friends say Conley achieved and his flirtations with the band. They are not specifically on the band or its achievements. Even source says he was more associated with the band Naked soul to the writer than to MIA. Merely claiming a band was notable in a scene (on here or on source on an individual affliated with it) doesn't automatically demonstrate that it was. ShimShem (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request. ShimShem, could you please stop hacking the article until the Afd is closed? It does your case no good to change Murder in a Foreign Place from an LP to an EP--it's 11 tracks, for goodness sake! Someone has to clean up the damage to the article after all. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:MUSIC through releases on Alternative Tentacles, Allmusic review and touring. sparkl!sm hey! 20:48, 29 July 2008 (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.