Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammal Hands


 * 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. With Zortwort and AllyD's rationale not being opposed, with due respects to the nominator's reasonings, this discussion is being closed as a borderline keep. Interested editors are suggested to spruce up the sources in order to avoid future nominations. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  14:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Mammal Hands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. As always, self-promoting wannabes often try to game the wikirules by claiming greater notability than they really have, so it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band in the door, but the degree to which the claim can be reliably sourced as true. (For example, NMUSIC's touring criterion is not passed by stating that a band toured, it's passed by reliably sourcing that the tour received media coverage.) But half of the sources here are the band's own self-published content about themselves on Bandcamp and their own website, and the other half consists of Blogspot or WordPress blogs -- which means that exactly zero of the footnotes represent reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please have a look in the references, the band has already released three albums and is on a world tour. I was on one of their concerts beginning this year and will visit one again next month. There are multiple references to reviewers, who just which are older I admit and just review their first album. They also were in the lineup of the Haldern Pop festival of 2017. Like GoGo Penguin on the same label then. I am not associated to that band, I like them. If my writing sound advertising because of this, ok I will change my writing style. This band exists since 6 years and each album has received positive reviews by critics. If you delete it you create a dead link more? What is the purpose of this? I will look for more references and remove bandcamp links, but do not delete this page. There are FOUR articles in jazz specific magazines linked alone for reviews of the first album. I took them from the Czech page. I am NOT a self promoting wannabe Bearcat. I only took notice of them this year. I COULDN'T FIND A WIKIPEDIA PAGE ON MAMMAL HANDS IN ENGLISH! So I wrote one. I am German, not even ever was in England. I do not know this guys personally, but I would appreciate it. At least them are not some ignorant fools with biased opinions. Tlwm (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion test for a band is not "I've been to their concert" — it is reliable sourcing, of which you've shown none. The reviews you cited are from blogs, not reliable sources, and no band can ever claim anything that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt them from having to be sourced properly before they qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW. they are published by Gondwana Records, which is a label who takes care of 11 artists/groups. THERE IS ALSO NO PAGE FOR THEIR LABEL nor the other artists apart from GoGo Penguin Tlwm (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being on a record label is not an automatic inclusion freebie for a band, in the absence of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They were also on the Montreux Jazz Festival this year. They are not no one.Tlwm (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, "played at a festival" is not a notability freebie for a band if the fact is sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself — playing at a festival, even a notable one, counts as a notability claim only to the extent that real media devoted their editorial resources to producing reliable source content about the performance. No matter what notability claim you're making for any band, the test is not the claim, but the extent to which real media did or didn't independently create their own unaffiliated content about the band's achievement of that notability claim. The touring test is passed by music journalists writing reviews of the concert in real newspapers and magazines, not by concert calendars or blogs; the "relased albums" criterion is passed by music journalists writing reviews of the albums in real newspapers and magazines, not by the albums' Bandcamp pages or blogs; and on, and so forth: the notability test is not the claim, it's the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir, again, these are real musical journalists and real music magazines:

Phil Barnes (2014-10-18). "Mammal Hands: Animalia". www.allaboutjazz.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25. Bruce Lindsay (2014-08-30). "Mammal Hands: Animalia". www.allaboutjazz.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25. "London Jazz News Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.londonjazznews.com (in Englisch). 2014-10-02. Retrieved 2018-08-25. Ian Mann (2014-10-18). "The Jazz Mann Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.TheJazzMann.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-25. "Review of shadow work" (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-26. David Rodriguez (2017-10-19). "The Jazz Mann Review of Mammal Hands début album Animalia". www.itdjents.com (in Englisch). Retrieved 2018-08-26.
 * and I am not finished. I took out the bandcamp links READ THE ARTICLE! Tlwm (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is Jazz and not Beyonce Knowles, yes.Tlwm (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "All About Jazz is a website established by Michael Ricci in 1995."
 * Is this reliable enough?Tlwm (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * London Jazz News is a Blogspot blog, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. All About Jazz has a "member benefits" page which makes it clear that their content is user-generated, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. Itdjents is a WordPress blog, not a real music magazine that counts as a reliable source. And The Jazz Mann just gives me a "You have exceeded the allowed page load frequency" error, not actual content — but the author's name makes it painfully clear that he's self-publishing his own opinions, and not vetting them through the editorial chaim of command that is one of the base requirements for a source to be considered a reliable one. So no, I'm evaluating the sources correctly — you're the one who doesn't understand what's required for a source to actually provide proper support for notability, not me. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also their first self published album. Tlwm (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you define quality of music? By sells? By amount of contended sugar? Wikipedia just keeps track of multi billion stars like Shakira? Then this whole wiki site concept is not worth it's bandwidth or hd space. Make place for porn?Tlwm (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything whatsoever about "quality of music" — that's a subjective criterion which every musician on earth would always claim to pass, and whether they actually did or not would be up to individual taste. It's the sourcing being used to support the article that has to achieve a certain specific minimum standard of quality, not the music that's being written about — our inclusion criteria are based on sources, not on personal opinions about who's better or worse at what they do than who else. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * EXACTLY, Jazz is not featured on MTV, so I can not reference to some kind of academical source - if MTV is a academical source, I diverge. I saw them live, they have very good but not overwhelming reviews, they are not meant as public ads.Tlwm (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no hype, it is their third good album in 6 years. They work hard and tour hard. Concerning sell's look at the list of sells at their last album. There is a demand. I hope someone else contributes to the page I begun.Tlwm (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU THINK THEIR MUSIC IS GOOD OR NOT. Our notability criteria are not based on anybody's personal opinions about whether the music that a band makes is good or bad — every musician on earth is going to be thought of as the most talented musician in history by somebody and as the worst or most overrated musician ever by somebody else, because everybody's taste is different. Our notability criteria are based on whether the music that the band makes does or does not get RELIABLE SOURCE COVERAGE IN REAL MEDIA, not on what anybody thinks about whether the music is good or bad. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited standard review site's. There are no self serving sources. I have cited independent reviewers. I did not wrote this article for advertisement. The cited sources are not biased, they are reviews. I collected simple facts, which I could prove within the Wikipedia itself (music theory) and dates and other stuff like names independently. The description of their style is based upon musical theoretic facts not opinions. That is the reason, why I heavily cited other wikipedia articles. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME? Tlwm (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources, and cannot be used to support the wikinotability of anything. What we want from you? RELIABLE SOURCES THAT PROPERLY SUPPORT NOTABILITY. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is that jazz is a niche in genere so I can not give an MTV article. Do you understand me? If I would write on my opinion I would completely different. Tlwm (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody fucking asked for any goddamned MTV articles. So no, I don't understand why you keep harping on MTV articles, because nobody asked for any, and MTV doesn't do "articles" anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the passage Some articles will get deleted anyway about small bands. My argument is that you do not get invited to the Montreux Jazz Festival if you are that small. I argue with MTV in irony. Since Jazz as a genre is small and few mainstream represented. They made three albums on Vinyl, CD and download on a record label. GoGo Penguin is now on Blue Note. I think they deserve it. A school band does not play on Festivals. My personal opinion is that this is exactly the purpose of the Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia and contains sooooo much special interest stuff. If you write about festivals you have to write on the bands who play there. Art is subjective, yes.Tlwm (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not one single personal opinion of me in that article. I did not wrote an opinion on Amazon.Tlwm (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall I scan an article from a Jazz magazine I bought at the main station? What else do you want?Tlwm (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I said not one time in that article if I like this band or not. That is not what I write about. I make music myself. I know what repetitive structures in music are. What specific information is it, which you have doubt in? ME? Tlwm (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bruce Lindsay of all about Jazz for example, wrote 695 CD reviews. I have to trust, that he listened to this cd's. What do you have distrust in? Tlwm (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And who is we? Are you talking in third person of yourself?Tlwm (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw. The help to find sources on top of the page is nice, but is mainly about American sources. This is the English wikipedia, not American wikipedia. If you want to Americanize the Wikipedia make a specific one. This wikipedia is for all people who can at least read English.Tlwm (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some sources from British media websites. I don't see why you guys decided to argue so much when a couple of google searches could have easily turned up some sources for you. These guys are obviously not a very well-known band, but considering how many other acts have wikipedia pages without being headline groups, and how those articles have not been deleted, I don't really see the problem here. I think you guys have decided to pick on this article because it's new without bothering to research the subject matter. Zortwort (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And by "you guys" I mean Bearcat, thought there was someone else but it seems he's the only one who has a problem with the article so far. Zortwort (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see a reason why wikipedia should be a part of a system just to support big acts. That would be an active suppression of not so big acts. Where when not here to write on cultures and sub-cultures? Ever asked yourself why people stop to write articles for wp?Tlwm (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not limited to "big" acts. What we are limited to is acts that can cite real reliable source coverage about them in real media (not blogs), verifying that they meet a notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your policys are overwhelmingly burocratic which have exactly that effect. Besides all that critic points could also apply to football for me. So please delete the football article. This is bureaucratic and pedantic Tlwm (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed you mentioned there being a magazine article about this band, you don't need to scan it to reference it. Reference it somewhere in the article, because being the main subject of a magazine article in a popular magazine is alone a sufficient claim to notability. That said, I also added some references from news outlets which qualify as notable coverage, so it's probably not necessary. Either way the article meets the criteria for notability now, so there's no valid reason to delete it. Zortwort (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Tlwm (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also added another link to an article from 2016 in the Jazzwise Magazine, which is (according to themselves, I admit) UK's biggest selling Jazz magazine in paper and online. I hope that is enough. Tlwm (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also added wikipedia internal links to fight orphanage. Tlwm (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The were already two different bands form the same label in the wikipedia. Do not bomb them now as well but I am just adding another very good. And the label itself. The wikipedia policys for notability are very questionable. You put the Ninja Tunes label under delete request? I bought music as a teenager in the 90's from them. They are a giant!Tlwm (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Tlwm bought the band's record 25 years ago" is not a criterion for notability in the Wikipedia guidelines. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He's right, though, look at the Ninja Tunes article. They're a hugely notable label, he's just saying that people who aren't informed have tried to delete obviously-notable articles in the past before bothering to research and improve them. His buying their music in the 90s was just a bit of narrative. Nice work improving the readability of Mammal Hands, by the way. It reads a lot less subjective now. Zortwort (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Links been removed with the rationale that the band is nowhere near notable enough to go on those lists. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can somebody digest the above discussion and help bring about consensus from it?
 * Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. The bulk of the sources in the article are from a press release service or blogs. The three legitimate sources consist of two which are local interest – Norwich Evening News and Bristol Live – and do not, in my opinion, provide weight to notability. The third, Jazzwise Magazine, seems to be a good source but, by itself is insufficient to get them over the bar notability wise.  I see no indication that they have charted or been placed in rotation in a major radio market but I very well could have missed something because I am unfamiliar with the genre. I am willing to reconsider my position if new sources of information is found. If that happens please feel free to ping me.  Jbh  Talk  00:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm still unsure exactly what opinion I have here, but I'm leaning towards keep. My perception of the article is admittedly biased by the fact that I've seen hundreds of articles on bands and musicians which are far more trivial, and have far less comprehensive sourcing/ support for notability than this one. I also think that while a single local interest news source doesn't provide weight to notability, several local interest sources from across the UK do (they're obviously not a local band which is being covered, but rather local news is covering them for their notability, is the way I see it.) This in combination with the article in Jazzwise to me provides a sufficient sourcing basis. Beyond that, I also think that Gondwana records qualifies as a more significant indie label, as they've been operating for many years and the other bands under their label more easily pass the criteria for notability than Mammal Hands does, and per WP:NMUSIC recording several albums for a large indie label is also a claim to notability. The combination of these factors along with the fact that while appropriately uncited in the article, there are many listings online for their performances at large venues and festivals, is enough for me to think that this band is sufficiently notable, and that this notability is supported almost well-enough within the article. This is the rationale behind my hesitant keep vote. Zortwort (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to append that Bearcat's original concern about the article reading as promotional has been largely resolved thanks to PaulCHebert's edits, so I think it should purely be a matter of notability at this point. Zortwort (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no sign of clear consensus here.
 * Comment: Tonight I added Wikiproject Jazz to the article Talk page, so this AfD should appear on the project alerts page tomorrow. Regarding this case, I haven't considered the sources yet, but one comment for the moment is that AllAboutJazz is a sometimes awkward combination of reprinted promo material and bylined articles. In sourcing jazz articles in the past (for example during the BLP drive some 8 years ago), I have avoided the former but been comfortable in using the latter as reputable sources. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: As well as the substantial bylined reviews by Bruce Lindsay and Phil Barnes at AllAboutJazz, there is a paywalled article in Jazzwise (intro). Less usefully, I'll note brief review coverage of a festival appearance in The Guardian and a namecheck in an interview in The Observer, though neither sufficient to sustain notability in themselves. Similar for a brief review in the Glasgow Herald, among other performance coverage. In terms of radio station coverage, I doubt any jazz musician of the past 2 generations has been playlisted "in rotation" (a rather industry payola-vulnerable criterion anyway, in my opinion), but concert recordings have been featured in The Jazz House on BBC Scotland. I would prefer to see just a bit more, such as an article by a leading journalist in the field such as John Fordham, but I think there is just enough in terms of breadth of coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with reviews in AllAboutJazz and further coverage, as per AllyD's description above. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (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.