Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck


 * 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   Speedy delete g3, hoax, author has now gone so far as to start reporting "no" voters to AIV. Enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Spaceduck

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A disputed speedy; I thought this was suitable for a more wide-ranging discussion. This appears to me to be a hoax. The only useful citation is a link to a BBC video that I cannot access; a Google search reveals no information about this topic that relates to the material in this article. There is nothing here that appears to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Please note that there appears to be an open sockpuppet investigation with respect to the individual(s) most disputing the speedy tag. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, the BBC link I have viewed and can't see how it relates to anything called Superduck. I can't see how this person or group are notable enough of their own article --5 albert square (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Albert, the interview with Spaceduck and concert footage is there plain as day if you watch the documentary. And if you're searching for "Superduck", of course you won't find anything because that's not the name. Please try again and report back. I know it will take an hour of your time. Bear with me and do it. Chazella (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spaceduck has been around for 10 years. I checked the link to youtube, it's valid. Also saw it listed on last.fm. The BBC show can be watched if you're a subscriber but I'm not, so I wouldn't know about that. Article needs proper citations, but Andyjw's accusations of 'blatant hoax' are wrong. Flag it for citations needed instead. Wikisicky (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But Youtube isn't a reliable source as per WP:RS, as a matter of fact XLinkBot (the bot responsible for removing such links) will probably be paying the page a visit soon to remove it --5 albert square (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * RS or not, the link shows that such artist exists. That's why I opposed Andyjsmith's tiresome accusations of 'hoax' and why I removed his tags. If he meant to say the article is not noteworthy, let him tag it thus and allow authors to amend, which is what I suggest. But we agree it's not a hoax, right? Wikisicky (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I trust the judgment of both Accounting4Taste and 5 albert square having observed them on a frequent basis here.  I could not find a reliable source for the article.  Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO if it is not a hoax.  GregJackP (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now viewed the clip on the BBC link provided and the clip does not mention anything called Spaceduck. If Spaceduck are real then it might actually be them in the clip but as the clip doesn't confirm this we can't be certain.  Either way the link would be no good to the article - it won't mean anything to anyone unless they're actually fans of this group!
 * I also saw the 49 sec BBC clip. Apparently to watch the full show you need a subscription. But as I've been saying, the article is not a 'hoax' as the old youtube videos prove. The article should be flagged for improvement, citations or moved to a stub, but 'hoax' it is not.Wikisicky (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has bothered to watch the full BBC link, and they still think this is all a joke, I present here for evidence a screen cap of Spaceduck as shown in the documentary (yes, I'll delete it as soon as this investigation is over, but I would like you all to see it first). Also the YouTube link to the short film "Brains" seems to work fine, so I don't understand why others persist in calling it a 'hoax'. True, the article needs work, but this won't happen if people keep yelling 'hoax'.Chazella (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have removed the copyrighted/non-free use image from this page. Such images are only authorized in an article, and then only under specific restrictions.  See WP:FAIRUSE. GregJackP (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Greg, as I said here and on the other page, the image was uploaded solely for the administrators' benefit. Please, stop tampering with the evidence, and let's try to be cooperative about this investigation if nothing else. Chazella (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with cooperating with the deletion discussion (it's not an investigation), but that doesn't include violating Wikipedia policy on copyright. GregJackP (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Greg, before you deleted it, you must have seen the BBC screen capture which is obviously not a hoax. That's all I had intended to do: convince you (you particularly, since you sided with the accusers) that this is not a hoax. If nothing else, would you please admit that Spaceduck is real and not a hoax? It would do wonders for this discussion if we could just get past that absurdity.


 * Next we can discuss if the artist is noteworthy. According to WP:MUSICBIO, the artist is notable if he "has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." That was the whole point of my posting the BBC screen capture. Let's now work together to make this a better article. Can you suggest what would help? Chazella (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The key phrase is "the subject of" - which, based on your own comments, he was not. A mere appearance does not make the person "the subject of" the show.  Fails WP:MUSICBIO, whether a hoax or not. GregJackP (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hoax. The BBC video has no references to this "artist"; the links to YouTube, LastFM etc all go to spoof material that was posted in October 2008; there are no relevant hits on google; and the website link is broken. This article clearly fails the Spaceduck test. andy (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, you already admitted that you don't care to watch the BBC video (and if you had, you wouldn't be posting). Please stop misusing words like "hoax" and "spoof" unless you are aware of what they imply; the links provide at least a dozen legitimate clips of the artist's work. The artist's website works fine on my computer; don't cry 'hoax' just because your internet connectionm is faulty. And most of all, please stop being so angry and antagonistic. Let's help each other improve the article, which I admit needs work! What do you suggest? Chazella (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so exactly where in that video is there a reference to Spaceduck? An approximate time would help - I certainly can't find any reference myself. andy (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the latter half. They cover the classic prog bands first, and then they move on to show the more recent crop. I have the documentary on my computer, and thrice I've uploaded screen caps for those who can't access the full video, but you guys keep deleting the evidence. I don't know what else to do. Chazella (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the BBC has now withdrawn the full documentary so nobody can check it out. BTW it was never available to download so I don't know how you claim to have a copy - the BBC uses a DRM system that only supports streaming. andy (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but request more citations. Change to a stub if necessary. The charges of hoax were not appropriate as I think we all see now. What's in dispute is notability which is proven by the BBC documentary. However, if the BBC documentary is not accessible, then give editors (prog rock experts) a chance to provide an alternate reference. To answer your question, Andy, Google 'how to download streaming media'. Chazella (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If notability can be established later, then the article can be brought back, but we don't leave an article up that fails notability standards on the mere possibility that it might be able to prove notability later. GregJackP (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg, you of all people should reverse your vote, if not abstain from voting, because you have seen the screen caps I posted from the BBC documentary establishing notability. Your stated reason for deleting this article was that you trust the others. However, none of them saw the BBC documentary or the screen caps before they voted. I just need to find a reference to the BBC that they can access. Chazella (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing my !vote. You have shown nothing remotely indicating that Spaceduck meets the standards of WP:MUSICBIO.  Screen caps, without context, are useless.  GregJackP (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete leaving aside the arguments about whether or not the article is a hoax, there is the question of notability. The only "references" in the article are (1) a link to Spaceduck's own site, and (2) a link to a video which does not mention "Spaceduck". It is possible that one of the people performing in the video is Spaceduck, but, apart from the fact that it does not say so, a video featuring the "artist" performing is not independent coverage. So the article gives no independent sources at all. Nor do the arguments above: we have for example "Spaceduck has been around for 10 years", and "RS or not, the link shows that such artist exists", none of which is about notability (my wife's pet cat has been around for ten years and really does exist, but is not notable). The only claim of substantial coverage is the BBC documentary. Although this documentary is no longer available we can get an idea of what was in it from the comments about it above. Andy said he couldn't find any reference to Spaceduck, and chazella responded by saying "It's in the latter half. They cover the classic prog bands first..." This suggests a fairly small mention: it is certainly clear that Spaceduck was not "the subject" of the documentary. My conclusion is that nobody has indicated the existence of any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * James, Andy did not bother to watch the BBC documentary when it was available. He said so (quite rudely) earlier, so don't accept his opinions on what it did or didn't contain. Rather than spend 1 hour watching the documentary when it was up, he would rather spend the last 72 hours cooking up his angry conspiracy theories. I agree that the BBC documentary needs to be available if cited. I am looking for an alternate reference, but I'm only one person with little time vs. a paranoid avenger with evidently too much time. I see his history & pride on Wikipedia revolves entirely around deleting articles, nothing ever contructive or contributing.
 * Back on topic, though, you made a point that the artist should be the primary focus of the programme, so the article should use something else entirely. Thanks for contributing to the discussion without getting venomous Chazella (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: the entry below was edited because it contained a link to an illegal downloading site posted by User:Andyjsmith. When I clicked on it, it infected my computer with malware which I've spent the last hour scrubbing from my hard drive. Andy, that was really uncalled for. You have been reported. Chazella (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's available to download There's a complete track listing here. And guess what...? andy (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that. Torrents are not allowed on my computer nor does wikipedia allow them as citations I'm sure, so I didn't explore your link. Furthermore, as we covered above, Spaceduck would need to be the primary focus and not just an interview (which at least you've seen finally) so the whole BBC issue may be irrelevant. I will continue searching for an alternate reference of notability. If you would like to help, please do. Chazella (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I thought Andy was actually trying to help. Lured into clicking the link posted by Andyjsmith above, I was dumped on an illegal downloading site which infected my computer with malware. Links to illegal downloads are a blatant violation of Copyrights ("if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work") and the malware infection, to say nothing of the user's persistent hostility, is a violation of Civility. Chazella (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time pointing out the bleeding obvious but the "official website" is of course part of the hoax. Just one example will suffice: the Tour page shows a performance at the Troubadour in Los Angeles on December 8, 2009. No such performance is mentioned in one of the top listings magazines here, which does mention other performances at the Troubadour that month. Indeed, Googling site:troubadour.com "December 8, 2009" yields no hits while Googling any of the other performances mentioned in Rollo & Grady does yield a hit, for example site:troubadour.com "December 11, 2009". I guess this is why self-published material doesn't count as a reliable source. andy (talk) 09:53, 27 May 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.