Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OOoOO


 * 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. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OOoOO

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable band lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC.  ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A google search for oOoOO comes up with 12,300,000 results; a google news search comes up with 16 related articles, which is more than the bands Family force 5 (10 results) Psychedelic Horseshit (1 result) Evil Nine (1 related result) Tragic Black (0 related results) and Rabbit Junk (0 results), all of which currently have pages. Therefore oOoOO is just as notable, if not more so, than a multitude of artists who currently have pages on Wikipedia.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The search for "oOoOO" yields the following statement on the last page of the search. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 622 already displayed."  The majority of those are unrelated to the article subject.  Regardless, Goggle hits has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability.  Please advise how the article meets the criteria in WP:MUSIC.  Each article must stand on its own merits, the existence of other articles has no bearing on this article.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let it be noted that my statements regarding google hits was in response to statements already made regarding that: also the claim that the majority of results were unrelated is untrue: a search for oOoOO "witch-house" results in a comparable number of results. Furthermore, oOoOO fulfills the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself (a number of publications have reviewed this artists work) and Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability (Is currently one of the most popular Drag artists, as well as one of the first). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagnetictape (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be enough reviews of the most recent work to support notability. JNW (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Can you cite those please? I only see a pitchfork review of his work, which to be honest, pitchfork has had controversy in the past in regards to reviews. I can't say they're a reliable source. It seems he's only mentioned when this supposed drag term comes up, which apparently these articles then in turn tend to focus on the band Salem, which apparently have been accused of coining the genre "drag". Thus not focusing specifically on oOoOO. I don't see how exactly that is notable. Diskotech (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [],[],[],[], [], [], [], and more from blogs. You can't possibly have looked very hard for reviews. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh, I know, i didn't look. Hence why asked about their claim. If they're gonna claim it, they should back it up. Yes? Also, many of these reviews come from sources not deemed acceptable by wiki standards. Diskotech (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep its notability is sourced reliably.Thisbites (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's confusingly titled due to the capitalization of the name, but the page is reliably sourced, meaning that WP:MUSIC is met, as described above. sparkl!sm hey! 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete He only seems to be mentioned very very very briefly (usually named dropped), whenever articles in regards to this questionable genre called "drag" come up. Articles tend to go over into detail in regards to Salem, rather than oOoOO. The only mentionable article would be the dazed digital interview. Is that enough justify for an article on wikipedia? Diskotech (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also reviews of their latest work, enough to support notability.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Agreed - Also, a review does not qualify as an article about the artist "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."Dhloe (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — Dhloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 00:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - notability shown by full articles about the subject (not reviews) in The Guardian, Pitchfork, Dazed & Confused and XLR8R. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Guardian is perhaps a "non-trivial" article, Pitchfork is about the "Drag" music not oOoOO, Dazed & Confused is an interview with a member of the band and as such is not a secondary source, and XLR8R is about Greenspan who happens to be in oOoOO.  ttonyb  (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Therefore whether it is an interview or more of a feature article surely does not affect any claim to notability either way. However, most interview content is not suitable for usage as a source. Note that oOoOO is not a band, rather a nom de plume for Chris Dexter Greenspan. You're right about the Pitchfork article, though. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ok, that leaves the question then: does one article from the Guardian and another from xlr8r fall under "significant coverage"? That could be very debatable. Diskotech (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that an interview does count as coverage under that GNG guideline, but not as a citable reference for article content. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – By it very nature, an interview is not independent of the subject and therefore, they are primary, not secondary sources.  ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While the information in the interview is not independent of the subject (and therefore is not usable as a source of information), if the people conducting the interview are independent of the subject, then this would still be considered as the artist being the subject of a non-trivial published work. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The caveat being that an article cannot be supported solely by primary sources.  ttonyb (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, while this is true regarding whether an article is usable as a source, what's being discussed in this debate is if this subject is notable. Interviews ARE invalid as citable sources, but the existence of interviews of the subject does support the case for notability. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 19:30, 12 December 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.