Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phunckateck Communications


 * 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. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, it seems. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Phunckateck Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure "collective" (more like an amorphous group) with horrible sourcing. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I posted a (second) PROD notice on the article today (not noticing the first one) and it was taken down.  The person who removed it posted to the talk page saying that they, and others, had been listing references which noted the collective's significance.  I see only one reference site (used four times) which is nothing but a database.  Nothing signifying why the collective is notable as opposed to simply in existence.  Since the first PROD notice, they've had nearly two weeks to make this article better but all it has become is a directory, which Wikipedia is not.  The article fails notability standards under either WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC.  Dismas |(talk) 02:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure what Orange Mike has against this page, but I'll address his concerns. He said there is only one reference site. I count over ten - from print like The Knowledge Magazine reference, to several interviews with memebers, and other sources around the web. While I'll admit the references could be better included in the article and have their usage footnoted, that is hardly a reason for deletion. As far as "Nothing signifying why the collective is notable as opposed to simply in existence" - I don't understand this complaint when there is clearly laid out section titled "Significance and Influence" with numerous examples and points. I never got a notice of the first PROD, but someone else who clearly agrees with me addressed those concerns.Thedjchewie (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, actually that was me that said that there was really only one reference site, which there was: Discogs.  So I looked at the references that were added recently to the "Significance and Influence" section that you mention.  There are currently six references used in that section.  Number 1, the Civic bulletin board which copy/pasted the article from a defunct magazine site, has basically a passing mention of Phunckateck.  Basically their existence is confirmed but the article isn't about them, it's about something else, Drum and Bass essentially.  The second, the Facebook posting in which I don't even see the word Phunckateck mentioned.  Third, the Billboard magazine jpg which I can barely read but again seems to be more about UFO! and making passing mentions of Phunckateck.  I could be wrong about this.  It's hard to see.  Fourth, again another passing mention which is more about UFO! and Drum and Bass than it is about Phunckateck. And then five and six are the same Civic bulletin board and Billboard magazine again.  I just don't see the coverage of Phunckateck itself which justifies calling them notable.  UFO! might well be notable enough for an article but for Phunckateck, it's just WP:TOOSOON.  Dismas |(talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the majority of the article talks specifically about Drum N Bass and not the collective themselves. Discogs.com is not a reliable source because it is based on user-submitted content. Also, thousands of mixtapes, songs and albums are released every day by unknown people but a release alone is not notable unless it charts or receives independent coverage. There is nothing in the referencing about specific releases nor about the collective itself in any kind of detail. Simply releasing material and existing is not notable.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  22:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep Excuse me if I am not posting this information correctly, it's my first time. I would like to clarity that Phunckateck is the sum of its members. Meaning that the articles referenced do contain mentions of Phunckateck but the article's content relates to the members individual contributions and achievements as members of the Phunckateck collective. Individual references should be considered as contributions to the overall significance of Phunckateck. As UFO! is one of the founding members and is also still quite active as an artist/DJ/producer, his efforts would be more prominent in the general media coverage of this type of music. Furthermore, There is reference to a Phunckateck VIP remix that was contracted by Dieselboy, a very influential DJ in the genre. Major editing of the page was finally submitted just this morning so I'm not sure if some of these issues were addressed or not. If you can suggest any specific copy edits or other ways to help improve the page, that would be very helpful.99.7.8.22 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 
 * reply - I'm sorry, 99.7, but it doesn't work that way. If there are not articles in reliable sources that substantially discuss Phunckateck Communications as a named entity, then there is no subject matter notable enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. Phunckateck can't derive notability from the notability of persons who belong(ed) to it or are/were associated with it: "notability is not contagious". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not how I read WP:BAND. Criterion #6 specifically says that an ensemble may derive notability from multiple notable members. Note that I am not currently arguing Keep or Delete. To qualify under WP:BAND #6, we would need to establish for one that this is a performing ensemble in its own right, rather than a looser confederation or group of friends, and of course that multiple members are indeed themselves notable (and that they are actual members rather than associates; "rumored" doesn't cut it here). If those are established, I would consider it a "keep" per that criterion. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * reply As I said above, UFO! may be notable enough for an article but the collective doesn't seem to be. Dismas |(talk) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:BAND; lacks multiple notable members (and even UFO! is debatable), international tours, etc.  Doesn't appear to be notable in its own right.  Barefooted chick (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2014 (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.