Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enigma Project


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Enigma Project

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

no assertion of notability per WP:BAND.

I am also nominating the following related page because this album does not assert notability beyond that of the band, which is itself not asserted:
 * — Swpb talk contribs 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * May I point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29&oldid=100995042#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, which reads, and I quote;
 * "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 *  It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."
 * I believe the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, nullify and void your claims for deletion. --Scuzzmonkey 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The band in question have been on the prime time show the session on BBC Radio Berkshire.

Is doing a UK TOUR from 28th March - 5th April in many venues from North to South of the UK

Album released on Napster/Itunes by Record label Automator records and was also stocked in HMV and Fopp stores nation wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.67.151 (talk • contribs)


 * The band does not meet the touring criterion, as it has not actually happened yet, and the record label is not established as a major or an important minor label, so that criterion is not met either. Could the band's appearance on radio be characterized as the band being "the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast"? If not, that criterion is failed as well. — Swpb talk contribs 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also cite Special:Contributions/86.138.67.151 as indicative that 86.138.67.151 is a single-purpose editor. — Swpb talk contribs 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The band was broadcast out on the hour long BBC "The session" which has established bands on the show. Including bands like Biffy Clyro.


 * Been reviewed and fetureed in UK and USA magazines. Also been a feature in NME.


 * I state that Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and information for everyone to enjoy. During the UK tour the public of the UK will be searching the internet for information on this band. Is it such a big deal that Wikipedia get the internet traffic that it wants for the information that people want. This is what the service is all about


 * 86.138.67.151 was myself who forgot to sign in


 * I state that more then one criterion has been met to and put across this article should not be deleted. Alexbeglincontribs'' 10:50, 19 January 2007 (GMT
 * I cite Special:Contributions/alexbeglin as evidence that alexbeglin is a single purpose account — Swpb talk contribs 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, as more than one article has been edited using this account.Scuzzmonkey 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the only thing I can garentee I know the most about. I find this rather pethetic that a user like myself tries to contribute to Wikipedia and gets put down constantly by somebody who seems to be nominating this article for deletion purley on the basis of pride and not for wikipedia represents. This band meets some of wikipedia's rules on Bands, I don't see why this is not the end of the matter— Alexbeglin talk contribs 18:28, 19 January 2007 (GMT)
 * There is no need to get personal. I have not insulted you in any way, I have only addressed your arguments.  The matter is not settled because the article does not convincingly show that the criteria are met, no matter how sure you are that they are.  There is no "pride" involved on my part, as I have no personal feelings about this band, though you, as the band's manager, have a definate Conflict of interest. Considering the edit history of a user as a way to put their comments on an AfD in context is a perfectly acceptable and well-established practice on Wikipedia; users who have edited numerous articles in different subject areas show a dedication to the project, rather than just to their particular cause. — Swpb talk contribs 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cite No Personal Attacks as a source that Swpb has attempted to disregard Alexbeglin's view due to his affiliations with the band whom this article is associated with, as stated within the policy, and I quote;
 * There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: [...]
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.--Scuzzmonkey 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is perfectly legitimate and is the applicable guideline here. Attacking a contributor based on ideological or political affiliations is one thing - pointing out a distinct conflict of interest is something else entirely.  I have not said that this discredits any user's opinion, so your quotation is not applicable - but I stand by drawing the conflict-of-interest to the attention of anyone who reads this discussion.  I am very familiar with the letter and the spirit of the policies, I think I adhere to them very well, and I don't find your attempts to make them apply against me to be very constructive. — Swpb talk contribs 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated in WP:COI
 * conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.
 * The notability of this article has already been proven, as I have stated above, and below, but shall get repeated again, the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, are proof of this notability.--Scuzzmonkey 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I, not as the article creator, but the major contributer to a vast majority of the information supplied on the page believe that reasons stated above by Alexbeglin are both valid and indeed very good reasons as to why the article should not be met with deletion. The hour long radio, as well as the upcoming tour, plus the reviews by several magazines and a mention in the NME all qualify this article about The Enigma Project to stay, and not be deleted. Scuzzmonkey 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cite Conflict of interest. as source of this face by arguing that Swpb has a conflict of interest between personal issues regarding the deletion of this artical and the facts that stand for this artical. The facts have been proven to how this artical has met the requirments regarding bands WP:BAND. (As proven at the top of this discussion by Scuzzmonkey. alexbeglin 01:34, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

I have followed the progress of The Enigma Project for a considerable length of time now. It is true that at the time of creation, this article did not meet the required criterion. However, as it currently stands the BBC Has articles on their website regarding the band Enigma Project BBC Article exhibit A Enigma Project BBC Article Exhibit B. This thus means the band has at least met the criterion for a verifyable article by a notable company, and hence, the band's notability is confirmed as it has met one of the criterion, which is all that is required according to WP:BAND. Furthermore, Itunes (on which The Enigma Project's work can be found) is significantly notable- could this be counted as a label of production? Finally The broadcast 1 hour long on the BBC Berkshire mainstream radio confirms this band's notability. Therefore, I feel that this article no longer qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia's policy, as any artist must only meet ONE of the criterion listed on the link given earlier- as such I would move that this discussion is closed? Phil 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that motion--Scuzzmonkey 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, this isn't Parliament, and you don't make motions, you wait for an administator. Secondly, stop twisting my words.  I didn't use WP:COI as a reason to delete, I raised it as a valid factor potentially affecting editors' motivations.  Thirdly, isolated quotes do not constitute non-trivial coverage, full articles do.  And fourthly, still no one has explained whether the band was the subject of the entire hour broadcast, or merely appeared on a brief portion of it, which I believe would definately not meet the criterion. — Swpb talk contribs 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Swpb talk contribs 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Failure of WP:MUSIC. Band manager should not be involved in writing articles about his own band - that's self-publicity and an obvious conflict of interest. Read WP:NPOV. Walton monarchist89 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would research into the show in question on BBC radio Berkshire you will find that bands are the feature of the show. They are subject to an hour long show being interviewed and even playing live on the shows. They played two songs on the show and interviewed for at least 45 mins. This means an hour long broadcast purley on this band. More information about the show can be found on http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/the_session/index.shtml. Also all users can find Wikipedias rules on deletion and all users can see that after 5 days administrators make their decisions. It is clearly stated at the top of the main article. There is no need to explain this and patronise other users. I find again a personal Conflict of interest into the deletion of this artical.  — alexbeglin talk contribs 17:43, 21 January 2007 (GMT)


 * I am not the band manager, I am just someone who goes to all thier shows because of my interest in thier music. I said I was to try and convince wikipedia that the facts are true as sometimes facts can not be backed up by things on the internet. A perosn by the name of Alex is the manager and part of T.N.T music http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=87532714 I herby retract the statement of the band manager above and have deleted it. - alexbeglin talk contribs 17:53, 21 January 2007 (GMT)


 * I apologise, I meant no offense and must have misunderstood your comments above. Nor did I mean to patronise anyone. Walton monarchist89 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above comment was directed to a different user SWPB not you. You did not cause offence nor did you patronise in any way. The comment was not directed to you. I respect your opinion with your previous band manager comment. However I am not band manager but understand that if I was it would be a conflict of interest. Please note to all users reading this discussion I am not band manager.alexbeglin 19:09, 21 January 2007 (GMT)


 * Keep: Regarding Swpb's comment about isolated quotes, the quote from Josaka is infact referenced, and the full article is availible by the link provided at the bottom of the article, or by clicking here. Also the feature article regarding them on the BBC, which can be read by clicking here. Those are two articles from different sources, on top of the other quotes, on top of the hour long radio programme. There surely cannot be any reason to delete the article, as more than one criteria stated in the WP:BAND (which is the orginal reason this page was submitted for deletion) has been met. I therefore cannot understand why this discussion needs to be continued, and if you (Swpb) could explain why it would be much appreciated. (the previous statement is not meant to be read in a sarcastic or patronising way, if that is how it came across, then I apoligise.)--Scuzzmonkey 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Also even though BBC Berkshire is a "local" radio station, as it is part of the BBC it can be listened to internationally via the internet by clicking here. As such, it reaches a far greater amount of people than standard local radio, and as such is notable. The cited articles on the BBC are notable due to the fact the BBC actually had to approach the band and ask if they could feature them on the website, thus proving the BBC must know about the band, and thus they are notable. --Scuzzmonkey 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:MUSIC, and also WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have already stated above as to why WP:MUSIC is not a valid reason for deletion, and the WP:COI is possible to only 1 person, I myself have no connection to the band, as manager/roadie or any other position.--Scuzzmonkey 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC articles (which I've fixed the links to, by the way) makes this article pass WP:V. so, Keep -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentI State that the users comment Andrew Lenahanshould be disregarded as this user has just repeated what others have stated without looking at evidence from above. I also state this user has not given any reasons to why it violates certain rules. alexbeglin 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this page, The preceding post was made by user 86.138.67.151, but signed as alexbeglin. I believe this indicates that the two editors are one and the same, and should be treated as a single user for the purposes of this AfD. — Swpb talk contribs 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be stated that this was confirmed earlier, by Alexbeglin himself.--Scuzzmonkey 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Addressing the one source presented, this seems to be a self-published website, which does not meet Reliable sources or Verifiability, prerequisites to the source being applied to WP:BAND. Also, evidence of this claimed hour-long radio broadcast has not been added to the article, and until it is, it's just that - a claim. — Swpb talk contribs 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails every part of WP:MUSIC except the radio broad cast. However their '1hour show' wasn't on BBC radio nationaly it was BBC berkshire local radio only, thus it fails as it wasn't a national broadcast. Both 'cited' BBC articles are under 'berkshire local bands', therefore they are trivial. So there are no non trivial and notable sources of information at all, and nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Josaka site is non notable.--155.144.251.120 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly user Swpb is finding stupid things to attack me on to try and back up his claims. I CLEARLY stated above that ip address was me that I forgot to sign in, and I just forgot to sign in this time again but still signed, but yet you seem to feel you need to mention this. In response to the above comment .--155.144.251.120 I cite that this user is a single purpose account as has not signed in OR signed. I find his arguments are NOT BACKED up with proof at all and move that they should be ignored. — alexbeglin talk contribs 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly its not a single account it has a history, secondly it was me just not loggin in. Thirdly the 'proof' is in the articles you linked to, as said the mentions on BBC were not national and were local only and so there is no proof from you or anyoneelse that it passes WP:MUSIC DELETE --Dacium 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Struck second vote, user voted above. I have struck the second, rather than the first as alexbeglin had done, because it just makes sense - the first is formatted in the standard way, and the second is in response to a reply to the first.  Frankly, whatever administrator reads over this is not likely to be confused by this so-called "double vote", but I have struck it through all the same, in the futile effort to keep alexbeglin happy. — Swpb talk contribs 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To me that seemed to be a rather personal attack Swpb as regarding to "keep alexbeglin happy". He is just after all attempting to stop an article, that he and others believe to be satisfying criteria stated by Wiki's Policies, being removed. It also seems (to me) that you are attempting to discredit his opinions by insinuating that he has lost his temper or started attacking other users, when it seems to me, the only user that is personally attacking over users is in fact yourself. (Again, the previous is only how I see it, and I apoligise if it has been read in a way that is different to anything other than an insight)--Scuzzmonkey 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BAND as it stands, potential to pass in future, so everybody just chill and hang out until they do. Very disappointing continued personal attacks on the nominator and other editors. Advice: don't sour people who might be inclined to support you if you behaved. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Soltak | Talk 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

alexbeglin Talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepMeets WP:BAND. By having review on http://www.josaka.com/Reviews/2006/The-Enigma-Project-000706.htm and also on BBC which is reputable source. http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2005/06/01/localband_enigmaproject_feature.shtml and also http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/11/29/enigma_project_christmas_party_feature.shtml.
 * Josaka is non notable. BBC articles are only local to berkshire and not national and therefore not notable to WP:MUSIC standard, as has been pointed out twice already.--Dacium 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - the articles suggest there may be some notability here, but I'd be happier to see an album on a known label before keeping. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Moved upto my original vote, due to actually making more sense there. If this is against policy then I apoligise.
 * Struck through multiple !vote. One opinion per person, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User Dacium has voted twice above as he claims it was him who signed the first one. Have struck threw his 1st vote vote. alexbeglin (arf!) 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As it stands at present, the article contains no claim to notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND. If properly sourced, I would be minded to review. Also delete Astronaut/Microcosm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eludium-q36 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Most people are saying it is a weak delete because it is very close to meeting criteria. Well the band are doing there UK TOUR in the next 2 months, and it does seem rather silly to delete this and then within 8 weeks having to spend hours remaking the page. This is one of the reasons plus many of my other arguments why i am not backing down from my previous vote of KEEP. alexbeglin (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one needs you to back down. But your opinion has been thoroughly expressed, and at this point you're not accomplishing much but giving the admins more to scroll through.  Feel free to keep commenting and complaining about people attacking you, but be aware that you're probably hurting your argument more than helping it. — Swpb talk contribs 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BAND. If they're almost on the borderline, well, then wait until they pass it and then recreate the article. Wiki is not paper -- it's exceedingly easy to recreate content once its topic becomes notable according to our applicable criteria. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:36, 24 January 2007 (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.