Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereo Satellite (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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Stereo Satellite
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Was made aware of this by its use as an example of a miserable failure of an AfD. I've had a look at that previous AfD, and I find it competely silly. To cover the arguments made in that discussion (as well as the other most common option): And by my count, that leaves the delete option. And that's the one I support. Now hopefully this AfD goes more smoothly than the last one. QuietHere (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Needs more input by new people, less by those who have already commented at length. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no keep argument here; as was said previously, the present sources are all restating the same material as each other, and that material is all glorified press releases anyway.
 * 2) There's barely a valid merge argument either; this article is two sentences long and the fact that those sentences haven't already been added to any of the three linked band members' articles seems telling regarding notability/how much editors care about this band. You could copy-paste them into those articles (although I'm currently strongly questioning the notability of all three) but an official merge vote puts way more weight behind this scrap than it deserves.
 * 3) And then, of course, there's the dreaded "How do we redirect to one band member over the others if multiple are notable?" question. First, that's assuming they are which I'm not convinced of; and second, surely the easiest answer then is to delete and let the search term guide users to where they want to go. All three members come up in the top five search results for the term, findability isn't that big an issue.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: AfDs on all three members (Here, here, and here). If those clear then that's it for merge and redirect for sure. QuietHere (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was the one who spread the word on the ridiculous first AfD for this band. I voted to delete in that one and wasted my time. I could be persuaded if anyone wants to make the effort to find a solution for the presence of this worthless article, instead of acting like inflexible bureaucrats and insisting that it survive because of a little policy confusion. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A bit of a weird case, I grant; the supergroup formed, released one single to media fanfare, and then promptly fell into a black hole. But the group's members are all notable (I have personally voted keep in 2 of those discussions, and the third is at worst a merge-to-band target), and the group did receive sufficient attention, even on the one single, to meet bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC. That's all it needs; WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This AfD is looking to be just as hopeless as the last one, but allow me to add WP:LOTSOFSOURCES if anyone thinks it matters, while WP:NBAND says that a band "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria...". There's a difference between may and definitely. Still happily wasting my time on this band that existed for a few minutes then broke Wikipedia. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, the thrust of the argument here is that, even though the group received a bunch of coverage, they didn't actually do anything, and I have some sympathy for that viewpoint; the point of a music encyclopedia is to cover music, and this group released almost no music. I have to believe that is driving the fervor with which the AfD is being argued. If they had never released any music at all, I might go along with that - it would have been a failed salvo in each of the lives of the musicians, perhaps best relegated to a few sentences in their biographies. But they did release a piece of music, and that piece of music was substantially covered; even without an album, or a tour, or any of the other things one often does with one's musical talents, we still have that document, and we have the RS coverage of that document. It doesn't merit a twelve-paragraph article, for sure...but it is, in my view, sufficient for as long an article as we can write on it. Chubbles (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep - This well sourced article with notable musicians should be kept. Having a second AFD less than 4 months after the first, IMHO, is an abuse of process.  Instead, a deletion review should have been instituted, to determine whether or not the previous AFD was done correctly.  If the article cannot be kept, the history should be maintained and not deleted via a merge to the article of the most prominent musician.  If they are equally notable, redirect to the lead vocalist, or flip a coin to determine the appropriate target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But I already know why the last AfD failed and it's because everyone disagreed about the arguments, and that's why I started a new one to present a new argument (which you and Chubbles haven't really disputed; the sources are still no good in my mind, like Doomsdayer also said). A deletion review would imply some significant failure of process in the prior, and the only thing that went wrong there was a split vote and a no-consensus. QuietHere (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here we have yet another argument that was made in the first AfD with no convincing evidence there and none here either. Someone please explain to me WHY the edit history needs to be retained as if that's the end of the argument. When someone typed almost nothing except that some unknown band once existed, that needs to be preserved for posterity? If there's a ridiculous miracle and this band reemerges and becomes notable in the future, someone can re-write the sentence about how they formed in 2017 without digging it out of the archives like it's one of the Ten Commandments and Moses really really really needs credit. I'm also in favor of a deletion review if this thing ends up in useless "no consensus" land yet again. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 12:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you please try something else for a change? This time discuss the quality and usefulness of the text to be redirected instead of just saying it should be redirected. The rest of us are. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Gonna second Doomsdayer here. Just because it's possible to save material doesn't mean it's material worth saving. It seems like your AfD votes consistently revolve more around a general desire to preserve everything on WP that you can rather than any specific concern for the article in question in any given discussion. QuietHere (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "Well sourced article with notable musicians", information about when the ensemble was formed, the name of their first single, information about the video as well as the main bands of the musicians. "Having a second AFD less than 4 months after the first, IMHO, is an abuse of process".  "Someone please explain to me WHY the edit history needs to be [deleted] as if that's the end of the argument".  It is easier to keep the information about the ensemble/references and to redirect it, than it is to delete it, then rewrite it later.  Once it is proven that the article is accurate and well sourced, the burden then falls on the individiual who would like it deleted.  WP:R says "They have a potentially useful page history", "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely", "They aid searches on certain terms" and "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".  It is also irrelevant that "those sentences haven't already been added to any of the three linked band members' articles".  If someone tries to recreate the article without sufficient material, the page can be protected, or the link can be salted.  Additionally, using phrases such as "competely silly", "ridiculous first AfD" and "worthless article" are bordering on the spirit of WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for reasons I gave in comments above and in the previous AfD. Hopefully the Admin who gets stuck with this dog does more than just count votes. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 12:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Precedents for Deletion - (I should have thought of this earlier.) Here are two precedents for "supergroups" with multiple otherwise notable members, in which the band articles were deleted due to non-notability. Both of these bands even released albums. The bands had accomplished nothing on their own, so that supported deleting their articles, without the need to argue about preserving precious edit histories by redirecting and then trying to figure out where to redirect to because there were multiple possibilities. So what was lost to posterity by deleting these bands? Would Wikipedia be better if those edit histories had been preserved? See Articles for deletion/Flying Testicle (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Maldoror (band). ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - WP:OSE. Unlike the other articles, this page is well sourced. Metal All Stars, Go Ahead and Die and Lody Kong were once redirected to Kobra Paige, Max Cavalera and Zyon Cavalera, respectively.  I would venture to guess, that there are other bands redirected to musicians as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OSE's pretty important here, as I would have voted to keep both of those articles if they had the level of sourcing this one does, and I certainly think they should redirect somewhere even now. Chubbles (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that the decision to redirect can also be debunked with WP:OSE? --- <b style="color:#C71585"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 19:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "Once it is proven that the [subject] is accurate and well sourced, the burden then falls on the individiual who would like it deleted" instead of being redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed that "burden" at least five times in both AfDs by arguing that the quality of the text and its usefulness for future editing purposes do not justify the redirect option. Even Chubbles has argued about the quality of the text but in the other direction, and that gets my respect. On the other hand, simply copying the names of policies and cherry-picking provisions within them, and doing so again and again, is much less impressive. And by the way, those insisting that this article be merged or redirected somewhere should accept the "burden" of doing so themselves if this hopeless discussion ever ends. --- <b style="color:#C71585"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "It is easier to keep the information about the ensemble/references and to redirect it, than it is to delete it, then rewrite it later". "Three of those sites do describe aspects of either the video or the song in some amount of review detail, and talk about plans to perform on a cruise".  There is going to be some overlap between articles that talk about the same band. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just like to reemphasise what I said initially about the sourcing not being nearly as good as other editors claim. Neither keep voter has actually explained why the sources are good despite that so I find it hard to accept as just a matter of disagreement. Yes, sites like Blabbermouth.net, BraveWords, and Loudwire are commonly accepted sources on WP, I've even used them myself plenty of times, but I'm not convinced they're enough for a whole band article because of the nature of the info they provide. @Jax 0677 @Chubbles what makes you say otherwise? QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blabbermouth and Loudwire, which I am more familiar with, are often rather informal in their tone, and their websites are "ugly" in a way that breeds suspicion from editors who are used to the UX design of The New York Times and The Atlantic. But they do independent journalism akin to what we might have expected, in previous music-rag generations, from publications like HM and Kerrang. Chubbles (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But that regards the websites as a whole, not the specific articles which are at question here. Again, I've used these sites before, I'm familiar with their tone and page design, and I don't care about those things. What I care about is the content of these articles being redundant to each other and, as I put it above, glorified press releases. That is precisely what is at issue here. QuietHere (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Three of those sites do describe aspects of either the video or the song in some amount of review detail, and talk about plans to perform on a cruise. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spin and Billboard sometimes just report more or less the same thing that a press release says, too; they know what their readers are interested in, and that can overlap with what is issued in promotional blurbs. The decision to report on a band at all is an exercise in editorial discretion; they get tons of press releases that they don't act on in any way. I don't think any of that challenges the general independence of the websites. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (This is in response to both comments above) A performance/tour announcement is just another thing that comes with a press release. In fact, I suspect several of these "articles" are just word-for-word press releases. I just removed Jammerzine after suspecting it had plagiarised another page, but then it turns out Grimm Gent also uses the exact same text. That's three out of ten sources that are definitely no good. Two more are only a sentence or two and just restating things that appear in other articles, so I wouldn't accept those either. That's half. And the other half are also mostly restating the same things, just phrased differently. The original content in any given article never amounts to more than a sentence or two. These are all unreliable sources. Not because of the websites they've been posted on, but because of the content they posted. Sure, there is "an exercise in editorial discretion" involved in posting anything to one's website, but if you didn't write it then it's WP:PRIMARY, and if you just rearranged a few words to make it sound more original then it's glorified PRIMARY. It's the same issue I brought up at the very start of my initial proposal: there are zero valid sources in this article, and no further coverage has been located. There is no keep argument here.
 * Now given that two of the AfDs on individual members closed as keep, I'd be willing to compromise on moving these three sentences into a section of one or both of those. Call that a merge vote I suppose. Delete this page and let the name stand as a search term where people can find the members' pages and be directed to those article sections. Whatever, just so long as this article does not stay because there is no justification for it remaining on its own. QuietHere (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Writing about a tour that a band will perform is something that helps establish notability of a music album article. There is going to be some overlap between journalism internet sites that write about the same music ensemble.  Three of those sites are describing the band or its music in critical reception form. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But the websites didn't write that, they took it from a press release. And the "critical reception form" is, again, limited to just a few sentences total between all the sources. I hate having to repeat myself but you're just restating arguments that I already responded to. If this is a keep, it's the weakest keep I've ever seen. QuietHere (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "A few sentences total between all the sources" is enough. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In re: "Delete this page and let the name stand as a search term where people can find the members' pages and be directed to those article sections." - this is terrible information management, and does not reflect how people use Wikipedia, especially when coming from other websites (like external search engines). It is the worst possible solution to the problem you've identified. The term should go, internally, to some place where we have information about its topic. The most sensible place for that information to reside, I maintain, is an article on the band. Chubbles (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --FMSky (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete: I do not find the sources, especially when they just regurgitate information from another source, to be very good. If you give out a press release everyone will have the same information. I did find some information here and here but one is an interview and the other a partial interview so I don't think changes anything. Some notable musicians and some not so notable got together. One song and a video, with a proposed album that I can't find a disposition, and no ending to the story. Notability in not inherited. Just not notable enough to pass WP:NBAND. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact of having two or more notable members is explicitly a criterion indicating notability per NBAND. NOTINHERITED does not trump this fact. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "There is going to be some overlap between journalism internet sites that write about the same music ensemble". "A few sentences total between all the sources is enough".  How is there notability in not inherited? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is responding to me (the indentation suggests it is), but WP:BAND bullet 6 recognizes that there is utility in providing information about a group with more than one notable member, where there is no clear redirect target. Instead of just deleting and leaving the user to sift in search, we provide a common-sense article for a band, in some cases more for practical information-organization reasons than for notability per se. An overly restrictive reading of NOTINHERITED would prohibit this, but I don't believe NOTINHERITED should be interpreted to trump WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources by Blabbermouth.net and Loudwire   pretty much lead me to say there's notability. Other publications like Broadway World  have started to introduce the members as being part of the band, so the page that can list members serves the reader. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.