Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milk N Cooks


 * 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. There's a lot of non-sequitur here that I had to sift through. Much of this is essentially arguing WP:INHERITED, which doesn't fly.

The strongest argument to keep is the list of sources presented, some of which are in reputable, mainstream, publications. However, some of these have been shown to be either passing mentions or obligatory local coverage, and thus don't bring much weight to a WP:N discussion. The one source that everybody agrees is totally solid is The Politico, but that's just one source, and one is not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Milk N Cooks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think this meets notability criteria. There are a couple of articles about the duo in a reliable source (one is a local writeup which I can't read due to a paywall) and the other is a local article about a drugs charge. The performances noted have, again, been at local festivals. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results. Proposed deletion contested. ... disco spinster   talk  18:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - mentions about their work in two WP:RS spaced 3 years apart + an additional WP:RS mention from 4 years prior for legal issues (and this WP:RS does mention their work as DJs) certainly meets WP:GNG. I don't know what is googling, but when I google "Milk N Cooks McElwain" (without the quotes) I get over 260,000 hits. Banana Republic (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added yet another WP:RS coverage. Banana Republic (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I still get 100 hits by searching without the quotes. Also, a short blurb in the entertainment section of a small newspaper does not really contribute towards notability. ...  disco spinster   talk  19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that by itself "a short blurb in the entertainment section of a small newspaper does not contribute towards notability", but when combined with a profile in a national publication years later it does add, which is why I think it's a speedy keep. Banana Republic (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ummmm....you are going to get those 260,000 "hits" for googling Milk and Cooks McElwain for all the instances where any of those word combinations appear. (Google Milk and Cooks Trump and you'll get many, many more.) Not all of them are about this subject. The fact that there are not that many beyond routine promotions, downloads and retail sites and their mirrors is why an editor brought this to AfD. But, yes, there is some news coverage as it relates to Trump. Not much, but maybe enough. Beyond that connection---and setting aside the drug related story---the coverage seems to be routine Entertainment guides and appearances write ups. The extent of the local coverage might be enough, but I don't have the time right now to dig deep in the research to weigh in with either a keep or delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A little more Googling yielded additional references
 * A mention in a January 2018 Guardian article
 * A mention in a January 2018 Vanity Fair article
 * From WP:GNG, Notability is achieved . In my opinion, the Politico article by itself satisfies this requirement. All the other references in the article (except for the reference about their legal sentence) + the two mentions in WP:RS listed above should make this a no-brainer keep. Banana Republic (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the Guardian reference to the article. There is no need to also add the Vanity Fair reference because as best as I can tell, the Guardian and the Vanity Fair references discuss the same party in which the duo performed. Banana Republic (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The Politico article is not enough on its own - we need multiple sources. The Guardian and Vanity Fair articles only each contain a single brief mention. The Illinois Times is effectively just a listing, and the Daily Herald is an indiscriminate source which doesn't confer notability because every person or group who performs locally is likely to be reviewed in such a manner Pontificalibus 07:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Daily Herald should be considered as an indiscriminate source. The article is a full Q&A with the duo, and it does not appear that the newspaper would conduct a full Q&A with each and every performer that performs at the festival. The point is that it is in addition to the Politico article, and it is three years prior to the Politico article. While neither article by itself would be sufficient to meet WP:GNG, in my opinion, the two of articles combined show enduring coverage which should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Banana Republic (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I finally took the time to research this and have to agree The Politico article is the only significant coverage that fairly argues notability. Others cited, including the added Vanity Fair and Guardian pieces, are not about the subject, it merely references the duo. The local paper Daily Herald coverage of any band’s appearance at the annual Spring Awakening festival is indeed routine/promotional, and additionally fails in that it is an interview of the duo talking about themselves. Additional coverage is mostly local scene/promotional/small time. An example—not referenced with this article—would be this, a blog that solicits writers with the promise of free tickets and boosting one’s resume. (see: .) Considering the recent piece (two weeks ago) in Politico is the first good coverage they’ve received, it may lead to more, in which case this could be considered WP:TOOSOO,  but as of now this subject has yet to achieve anything of encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Milk N Cooks does not meet the notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). This seems to be an WP:PROMOTION attempt. Eliko007 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling the article a WP:PROMOTION is absolutely a groundless accusation. The article mentions how they were previously arrested for possession of cocaine. Definitely not something that is found in a WP:PROMOTION article. Banana Republic (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Politico gave a lengthy article on the band. There are other mainstream, reliable sources too such as The Guardian, Daily Herald and Illinois Time. And like him or hate him, Donald Trump is major force in world politics and this group is popular with Trump supporters. Trump/Brexit/Salvini in Italy/AfD are major forces and right-wing populism is sweeping across Europe/world. Furthermore, politics is downwind from culture and the right-wing making forays into culture is significant.Knox490 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: They may be popular with Trump supporters but that doesn't make them notable. The rise of right-wing populism is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting this will make them superstars (and even so WP:TOOSOON would apply). The Guardian article is not about them, they are just mentioned as the entertainment. The Daily Herald and Illinois Times are local papers that report on local personalities, especially when they are have an upcoming show. That leaves the Politico article, a single source that discusses them significantly. Doesn't quite make the cut. ... disco spinster   talk  15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: In May of 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere... In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."


 * The Atlantic, which is left/liberal leaning, just published this story: The Rapid Fall of the Left Sunday’s elections in Greece provide the strongest indication to date that the left is now in deep crisis.


 * The big shift of politics in the developed world from center-left to right-wing politics is easily among the top 5 big issues in today's world. For better or worse, that is why the media is Trump, Trump, Trump and more Trump in their coverage and politics is even seeping into things like sports shows, etc. This is why Politico gave such big coverage to Milk N Cooks.


 * Trump, his supporters and right-wing populists are transformational (The USA courts will be affected for a long time, anti-immigrant sentiment is way up around the world, nationalism is way up in world, anti-China sentiment is way up, etc.). And because they are significant/transformational, Wikipedia should cover them. Knox490 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you suggesting that all Trump supporters should be eligible for Wikipedia articles per se, regardless of whether or not there is significant coverage of them in multiple reliable sources? This article is about two particular individuals, not about the rise of populism and xenophobia. ... disco spinster   talk  19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are Wikipedians who want Wikipedia to be the world reservior for knowledge. That is unreasonable as it would be too costly and knowledge is expanding at an incredible clip.


 * But Wikipedia should at a bare minimum do a very good job of covering the extremely significant topics. And I clearly demonstrated that Trump's election/presidency/supporters are extremely significant.


 * And like I said, politics is downwind from culture (or at least very entwined with culture) and Politico recognizes this matter and devoted a big article on the band (The band is popular among Trump's alt-right supporters). Politico did not write an article on every Trump supporter.


 * The last election was close in some states if memory serves so the young voters, old voters...every vote counted. The Financial Times recognizes the power of the alt-right in the last election and wrote an article entitled "Why the alt-right is winning America’s meme war" (The article is behind a paywall). Time magazine wrote an article entitled How Donald Trump Is Bringing the Alt-Right to the White House. Although a lot of alt-righters have rebranded themselves as being "Nationalist Right", the alt-right was definitely influential in the last election and these people as an informal corporate group are still very influential.


 * As an aside, Richard Spencer, who is basically neo-nazi lite, claimed the label of alt-right, but the Nazis were right of the communists, but still left of center (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party).Knox490 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia does have this page: Ignore all rules which essentially says to use common sense. The article does have a reliable in-depth source via Politico plus some other reliable sources which are not as in-depth. Given the extreme significance Donald Trump's election/presidency/supporters, I think quibbling about sources for this particular article is pointless given the sources it has.


 * I gave a short quote of a May 2019 The Nation (The Nation leans to the left) article relating to Trump/right, but I want to give a somewhat larger quote to drive the point home: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the “pink tide” of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere. In Europe, with the recent exception of Spain, the left has been banished to the political margins. In Africa and Asia, socialism has devolved into nationalism, authoritarianism, or just plain corruption. And forget about the Middle East. In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands—Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay." And since May of 2019, Europe has further shifted to the right (Afd Germany is expanding, etc.).Knox490 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out the worldwide trust in media is very low. All of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream news media said Donald Trump was not going to be elected. Obviously, Trump was elected. And then Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream media pushed the Trump-collusion conspiracy theory which Mueller's congressional appearance and report showed was a total joke. Trump is not going to be impeached in all likelihood. I realize it is hard to be a profitable paper or news organization in the age of the internet and political polarization, but Wikipedia's reliable sources list/rule needs a major revamping. Accordingly, Ignore all rules makes perfect sense in the meantime.Knox490 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All this goes far beyond the scope of this discussion; the point being Milk N Cooks are not notable enough for Wikipedia. ... disco spinster   talk  01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked for reliable sources. Pointing out the mainstream news sources that Wikipedia considers reliable are no longer reliable is spot on and very relevant. Just yesterday, MSNBC retracted a story due to poor/sloppy journalism.

The mainstream news pushing conspiracy theories, engaging in sloppy journalism and engaging in other egregious practices has caused their credibility to plunge in the minds of the public.

I am not happy about this state of affairs. Now I mainly follow important trends and largely ignore the media when possible because what they are often presenting is an alternative make believe universe. Knox490 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re invoking IAR to keep this article on the basis that published sources in general are no longer reliable (except for Politico it seems)? What do you think Wikipedia articles should be based on? Your view of important trends? I think you’ll have a hard time achieving consensus on that.--Pontificalibus 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on truth and verifiability. I wish the mainstream press/media were reliable, but they are not.


 * In the USA: "78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened... If a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that."Knox490 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sparks controversy as it appears to adopt calling ICE detention centers “concentration camps”.


 * By relying on left leaning newspapers (so-called reliable sources), who are in bed with Democrats, Wikipedia is beginning to descend into madness. I took history classes on the Nazis from a teacher who went to Germany to do research. ICE facilities are not concentration/internment camps. Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. "Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler".Knox490 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because someone has something vaguely to do with Trump does not make them notable. Beyond the politico article, the coverage is lacking. They fail WP:NMUSICIAN, and they're certainly not notable for just a drug incident (which seems like WP:UNDUE coverage or coatracking BLPCRIME stuff anyway).  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A real borderline case. The Politico article is an excellent source here, independent, analytical and with thousands of words of coverage. This gets us very far but generally we want more than one good source and none of the other sources is half as good. Do they still suffice to push this just barely over the line? I don't know, it's a close call. Haukur (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * per WP:WHYN "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view".Pontificalibus 13:32, 31 August 2019 (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.