Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peach Pit (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. There is consensus that the sources available, although slim, are sufficient to include this subject in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 01:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Peach Pit (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, which is not a significant improvement in either substance or sourcing over the version that was deleted in 2018. The only WP:NMUSIC criterion this is even attempting to pass is #4 (touring), but notability because touring requires the article to be referenced to published concert reviews in real media, not just cursory verification that the tour happened on the self-published website of the band they were opening for. And the sourcing otherwise still isn't cutting it at all -- nine of the twelve sources here are blogs, student media, primary sources or performance clips on YouTube, which are doing nothing in terms of establishing the band's notability at all, and the one source that looks like a mic drop on the surface (Billboard) is not substantive coverage about the band, but merely a glancing namecheck of their existence in an article whose core subject is something else. So the only sources here that are actually getting the band off the starting blocks at all are BeatRoute and The Tenneseean, which is not enough coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1 all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is junk. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I decided to rescue and improve this article after my kids saw Peach Pit in concert in Seattle recently and turned me on to something new. This is already what every 15 year old in our Seattle area is listening to on their headphones. I was surprised to find no article on Wikipedia in spite of a nice groundswell buzz from two years of constant touring and a music video on Youtube which already has over 23 million views. Their songs are already turned into guitar lessons online, their likeness can already be purchased in 100s of artistic renderings, shoot - you can even buy replicas of their silly wardrobes. Anyway, Yes this band is relatively new, but they have certainly passed the bar for article notability. In good faith, I will keep mining sources and try to bolster the article further. I do not agree with the nomination for deletion. Thank you. --Luke Kindred (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is reliable sourcing. Not YouTube videos, not groundswells of buzz, not guitar lessons, not artistic renderings, not replicas of wardrobes: media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage. And not media as in blogs like "We Plug Good Music" or university student newspapers like "The Red & Black", either: media as in real daily newspapers and real print magazines, which is not what you've been using. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You sound upset Bearcat? Thank you for your incredibly high standards for Wikipedia. It's interesting to consider that a handful of blogs (by your definition) are capable of having wider circulation and cultural influence than many large city print papers and print magazines combined. As papers continue to fail and consolidate, this may press Wikipedia's historical reliance on print sources to a challenge. I dug up the Billboard Canada charts where Peach Pit had a decent run after studying WP:NMUSIC closer. Thanks again.Luke Kindred (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of a reliable source, for Wikipedia purposes, is not based on subjective interpretations of its influence, it's based on objective, quantifiable markers of its trustworthiness: its adherence to journalistic standards (such as researching carefully enough to be sure that the things it reports are correct, and being willing to publish corrections on the record when it does mess up), its editorial chain of command, its readership and distribution, its content being archived (e.g. on microfilm or in an online archiving database) so that the content will still be recoverable if the website ever dies, and its established reputation as a reliable reporter of real news. A site that doesn't meet those tests isn't a reliable source no matter how much "influence" you claim (but fail to verifiably prove) that it has. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And also, you've failed to properly verify that they actually made the Billboard charts. You cited the claim to this week's chart, which doesn't have any Peach Pit songs in it at all — the single that occupies the #37 position in the cited link is Tegan and Sara's "I'll Be Back Someday", with Peach Pit's "Alrighty Aphrodite" nowhere to be found in the entire chart. Even if they really did make the Billboard charts, you're going to have to find a source that actually verifies that before it changes anything. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep For the most part the junk sources are not an improvement from the prior deletion, but the added evidence of a song making a steady run in a National Chart, albeit at the weaker end of a genre specific one, is a sign of notability. Barely, but enough to put me on the edge regarding this nomination. I'm a big believer in the qualifier "may be notable" in assessing the significance of criteria that is met, and I almost went "weak delete," but what pushed me in the opposite direction is small additional recognition in the sole reliable source (this: ). Yeah, it's a trivial/routine mention, but combined with the chart activity, I think it's enough, though it's a feeble pass. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The creator hasn't properly sourced that the band actually made the national charts: they've cited the claim to this week's Billboard chart, which doesn't have any Peach Pit songs in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Bearcat (talk), I had noticed that, too, when I followed the link, nor did I get anything when I did a word search on the Billboard website. I was thinking it was a spurious claim and was ready to vote delete based on that, until I did find evidence in a bulletin board (which a protection filter won't allow me to link here) that chronicles the Billboard Canada charts with screen shots, which I couldn't find elsewhere. It appears their song "Alrighty Aphrodite" was in the bottom reaches of the charts (in the 30's and 40's) from June until Mid July of this year. While I personally think it's not much of an encyclopedic accomplishment, it nonetheless meets chart criteria. If it was just one week and done (those usually indicate pre-orders rather than actual success) I might have argued weak delete, but the fact it stuck around for a while makes me think there is something there. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even assuming good faith (which I have to until somebody can actually show me the proper proof), it isn't really the case that technical passage of an NMUSIC criterion confers a free exemption from the sourcing from actually having to be solid — even with a seeming notability claim in pocket, the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the article is still the make or break condition as to whether an article is justified or not. NMUSIC criteria don't exempt bands from having to have better than junk sourcing; the SNG serves to clarify the kinds of statements that can make the band notable provided that the article is supported by solid sourcing, but the sourcing still has to be solid no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As ever, the quality of sourcing in the article does not make the subject of the article non-notable. A quick Google search found significant coverage from The Georgia Straight:,  (plus ), The 405: , Trend Prive: , BeatRoute: , The Chicago Maroon: , Calgary Journal: , plus several examples of briefer coverage. Satisfies WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to try a lot harder than that. The 405 and Trend Privé are not reliable sources of any sort (they both accept user-generated submissions from absolutely any self-promoter who wants the publicity, and don't have named editorial mastheads at all); the Calgary Journal and the Chicago Maroon are both college student newspapers, which NMUSIC explicitly deprecates as totally unacceptable non-starters for demonstrating the notability of musical artists; BeatRoute and The Georgia Straight are both local to the band's own hometown, whereas a band has to have more than just local coverage to claim a "because media coverage exists" exemption from actually having to have attained any properly verified distinctions. So you've shown some sources that would be fine if there were better sources in the mix, and some sources that are completely unusable, and exactly zero sources that are enough in and of themselves to get the band over WP:GNG all by themselves in the absence of anything better. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the 405 is regarded highly enough that they have contributed to the BBC's Sound Of annual award selection, and the article on that site is written by one of its staff (Associate Editor). Just because a publication will accept submissions or is advertising for people to apply to write for it, that doesn't mean that there is no editorial oversight or fact checking. --Michig (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of bloggers have served on award committees, without reifying their blogs into reliable sources because of it. Doesn't mean we suspend all of our other rules about what does or doesn't constitute a reliable source (like actually being able to locate a named masthead, or exactly zero point zero zero zero of their content ever being user-generated submissions by anybody other than paid real journalists) just because we can find an associated person's name in a different source's list of contributors. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a blog. The website's staff are listed on the 'About Us' page on the site. --Michig (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a blog. I used bloggers as a parallel example to why contributing to a different media outlet's award selection committee is not in and of itself the magic conferrer of "reliable" status on a source that doesn't otherwise meet all of the actual criteria to be considered a reliable source. And I notice you aren't otherwise attempting to locate better sources to counter the problems I pointed out with Trend Privé, the Calgary Journal or the Chicago Maroon, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

13 weeks on the Billboard charts indicates a solid amount of sales and airplay. When I tried to cite it before the generator clipped the date info. Please look at the correct reference and do not delete this article. Thank you.Luke Kindred (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You still have to reference the rest of the article's content to real reliable sources, not blogs and student media, before the equation changes. The rule isn't that as long as they technically meet a criterion, they're allowed to use junk sourcing and exempted from having to show solid sources — NMUSIC #1 must always be met by every article about a band or musician, through the use of the correct quality of sources. Regardless of what other criteria the article does or doesn't claim passage of, a band still has to pass #1 in addition to the other criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, now you are just making up your own rules. WP:NMUSIC states clearly, "Musicians[...]may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" then list 1-12. It absolutely does NOT say, "NMUSIC #1 must always be met by every article about a band or musician" and I believe that your word twisting puts your credibility as an editor in question. There are in fact many NMUSIC articles which rely almost entirely upon one of the 12 items, and not necessarily #1. You seem to be arguing pretty heavy for a "technical" conformity to WP:NMUSIC so now you're just contradicting yourself.Luke Kindred (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't make up my own rules. Every article on Wikipedia must always be supported by reliable source coverage about the topic, and no topic can ever claim anything that is so "inherently" notable that the topic is exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because of what the article says. Yes, a band is a valid potential topic for a Wikipedia article if they pass one of the criteria in NMUSIC 2-12; reliable source coverage still has to be present to support the article before it's actually allowed to exist, because that's exactly how Wikipedia always works. (For a reason why, keep in mind that if all a band had to do to get into Wikipedia was say that they passed an NMUSIC criterion, and they didn't actually have to show any sources as long as they had claimed passage of an NMUSIC criterion, then bands could force themselves into Wikipedia by lying about passing NMUSIC criteria they didn't really pass — and then we're not an encyclopedia anymore, but just a free platform for people's own self-published PR bumf. And just to be clear, no, I'm not saying this band's notability claim is a lie; I'm simply pointing out the reasons why technical passage of a notability criterion cannot automatically exempt a band from still having to have reliable sources.) And if you can find other articles which aren't properly sourced, then read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — the fact that some articles can be found that aren't properly sourced doesn't mean that sourcing becomes optional, it means the other non-compliant articles need to be deleted too and just hadn't been noticed by a responsible editor yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Input from additional editors would be helpful.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be enough third party coverage here to keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the article is still based almost entirely on primary sources and blogs and student media, which aren't support for notability at all, with almost no genuinely reliable or notability-supporting media coverage about the band being shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 7 September 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.