Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The DFenders


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The DFenders

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:MUSIC (unsigned band; no chart success, not notable for their music). Media coverage is strictly WP:ONEEVENT; the only reason they received said coverage was that the main sponsor of the award they were nominated for (a vote-online people's choice award) believed they were guilty of ballot stuffing. As a result, the award sponser will be changing the voting system next year. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - here is a perfect example of a band which fails WP:MUSIC but which meets the General notability criteria - the kerfuffle over their award nomination received nont-trivial  coverage in multiple national media. Special notability guidelines never override the general notability policy, they only enhance it. A rewrite is still required - I have warned the original author that most of the history material will be removed unless it can be sourced. The AFD nomination above is factually incorrect. The organisers of the awards have stated they are happy with the nomination process, it was the music manager of the principal sponsor who complained publically. dramatic (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  dramatic (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The controversy over the ballot-stuffing is somewhat notable, but the band is not. Even the controversy was a passing news item, its notability is very minor. The controversy might be notable enough to be mentioned at New Zealand Music Awards, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral veering towards delete - not notable via WP:MUSIC as a band, and the ballot stuffing would probably count as a WP:BLP1E equivalent. On the other hand, they did reach the final of the awards and were cleared by RIANZ of any misconduct - as such they clearly have some minor notability. (Oh and a further clarifying comment who know about my real-life activities - I am not involved with this band in any way, have not seen them perform, and have never met them). Grutness...wha?  23:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it scrapes through WP:NOTE. "Significant coverage" is met, the news coverage is beyond trivial and addresses the band directly, one headline includes the band name. Multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. XLerate (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the band was notable in its own right, there would be coverage of the band independently of the awards controversy. The band may yet become independently notable, but right now all we're seeing is a small trickle of articles about the band in the context of the controversy.Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because of the awards and the associated controversy. Needs rewriting, though. --Helenalex (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because of the awards and the associated controversy. Needs rewriting, though. --Helenalex (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - as a band, they are not notable. And the coverage is really WP:ONEEVENT making them a subject for a news article, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Can anyone explain why this keeps getting referred to as failing WP:MUSIC? Quoting WP:MUSIC: "A musician or ensemble... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:  Has won or been nominated for a major music award."  The band was nominated for a major award, so meets notability according to Wikipedia's own guidelines.  Pretty cut and dried.  Chart success, being signed to a label, etc...  these are simply other options for notability.  Some of you mentioned that the only reason this band got news coverage was because of their nomination and therefore dismiss it as an isolated event, but it is the nomination itself that satisfies the notability criteria, not just the coverage. Dogma inc (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) — Dogma inc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - My reading of it indicates that the nonminations for the People's Choice Award was an open ballot to the public with no oversight which resulted in the ballot stuffing situation. Rather than taking a literal reading of WP:MUSIC and determining that any nomination suffices, we should account for the reason for that criterion for notability in music.  A nomination for a major award provides for notability because there is a presumption that in order to get the nomination, the work or body of work for a band has been noted by peers or critics and has undergone some form of critical review or evaluation.  In this case, the nomination if for a People's Choice award in which the nomination process was an improperly supervised open ballot.  Notability is not the same as popularity, and in this case, notability is not the same as faked popularity through ballot stuffing.  There was none of the critical review in the nomination process that would have imparted notability to having the nomination.  In combination with the lack of coverage about the band for their music rather than the ballot stuffing incident leaves the band short of clearing the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that User:Dogma inc is most likely a single-purpose account in that he's only edited The Dfenders' pages.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd just like to clear up that there was no ballot stuffing, as so many of you keep referring to it as. The band received clearance from all the people in charge of the event and the only person to lodge such a claim was reprimanded for speaking out of turn and for his conflict of interest in the outcome of the award.  Watch the TV3 news coverage linked to in the article, where head of RIANZ Campbell Smith states he did not have any problem whatsoever with the outcome of the award.  Does anyone actually read the sources themselves or do you just go off what one user says?

And, on that other note, yeah, this is the only article I've edited so far... mostly because it got deleted out of hand and I've been spending all my spare time fighting to keep it up...  Would love to edit some more articles, but frankly, I don't really see the point when there doesn't seem to be any adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, and administrators with personal agendas just arbitrarily decide what they'd like to see kept and deleted. P.S. The DFenders also have songs currently on rotation on the nationally broadcast radio station KIWI FM... yet another notability criterion that is just blatantly being ignored. Dogma inc (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just added a citation for a review of The DFenders album that appeared in Real Groove magazine, completely independent of anything to do with the awards. No website link, though...  they'd like you to buy the magazine. Dogma inc (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, overall seems to fail WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Because Wikipedia is all about the references, I just wanted to back up what I said earlier with "the only person to lodge such a claim was reprimanded for speaking out of turn" - Morgan Donoghue is quoted in The Christchurch Press as saying, "It wasn't my place to say that voting rules would change next year. I upset a lot of people with what I said."  Article by Vicki Anderson, The Christchurch Press, Mainlander Section, 11/10/08, entitled "Music Voting Vexes Fans." Dogma inc (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue isn't so much about whether it was technically ballot stuffing; the issue is more about the fact that this band isn't notable for anything outside of a single newsworthy event, and that the band isn't notable for their music. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:46, 12 October 2008 (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.