Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Peacocks


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Peacocks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article on band with unsourced claims of notability: having gone on tour in Europe and making appearance in North America. Google News returns only trivial mentions of the band name. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND - No significant coverage in reliable third party sources to prove notability.Spatulli (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I found multiple mentions in The Jerusalem Post about their album releases on Oleh! Records, and this article in particular has significant coverage. Meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me like an interview, and thus doesn't meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Spatulli (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Spatulli. I think the part of WP:BAND to which you're referring was included to help ensure that other types of non-independent publications (along the lines of press releases) were not used to try to establish notability. That's not the case with the article linked above, which is an article about the band published in a major newspaper. The writers and the editors made the decision that there would be enough reader interest to include a moderately long article solely about the band in their newspaper; I think that's the general idea behind criterion #1. Most arts writers who write a lengthy article about a musician or band will include some interviews if possible; that the Post article has interviews as part of it is neither here nor there. Other articles in the Post that mention Midnight Peacocks—"Musicians signed with Oleh! Records include hardcore rockers Midnight Peacocks", "Hardcore rockers the Midnight Peacocks are about to drop their highly anticipated, Oleh!-aided second album", "'hard core oriental band' the Midnight Peacocks", "self-styled Israeli "circus-core" rockers, the Midnight Peacocks" and so on—would not be enough on their own to establish notability, but combined with the feature article I think the bar of notability is passed here. There's room for some disagreement in a case like this; I do recognize that. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul Erik, thanks for replying. I don't agree. If I understand the Wp:BAND criterion #1 right, it states that "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, ... EXCEPT for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", and thus I do not think that this statement is referring ONLY to non-independent sources, but to ANY source as explicitly stated "Except... any other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". I understand that you may think that it might seem notable because it gets mentionings in a newspapers, but IMO, the bar of notability isn't passed according to the wp:BAND criteria. Spatulli (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're arguing the letter rather than the spirit of criterion #1. See the discussion about the text you've quoted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 12, for example. If that doesn't help, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * O.k. There was no real "conclusion" to this debate. Well, if you decide not to abide by the rules, it's your issue. Spatulli (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is one of the most notable Israeli alternative bands. It released two albums. I added several links to establish notability; you can find many more if you google the name "מידנייט פיקוקס" in Hebrew. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment did you read the notability criteria for bands? It says : ""This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, ... EXCEPT for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising". ALL the links you put there without exception, include principally an interview with the band members. The third one doesn't even talk about them (ony a discography, no words about them). Thus the band still doesn't pass WP:BAND. Sorry. Sincerely, Spatulli (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spatulli, again I think you are misunderstanding that part of the guideline. Have you read Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 12? It makes it quite clear that articles based primarily around an interview were not meant to be discounted in the way you suggest. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I believe that Paul Eric's interpretation of criterion 1 of WP:BAND makes sense. The whole idea behind the concept of "notability" is that someone else has "taken note" of a subject and ideally that "someone else" should be a journalist/reporter working for a news organization with editorial oversite. If musicians are writing about themselves on blogs, facebook, and myspace pages, then that's not "notability" because they're only "taking note" of themselves. However, if an independent journalist decides to write about them and that coverage happens to include an interview, then "someone else" has "taken note" of them and that's the kind of notability we need. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is exactly the kind of in-depth coverage that we require, in a top newspaper. The exception in WP:BAND obviously doesn't apply; someone seems to have poor reading comprehension. I haven't seen more articles of this kind, but I trust that that's because I haven't searched for them and don't read Hebrew. The quality of the one source makes it almost certain that others exist that make this band or whatever it is pass the "multiple" criterion. Hans Adler 13:55, 8 October 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.