Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Radioactive Chicken Heads


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Radioactive Chicken Heads

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References provided in this article include the following: 1. Something from a late-night Thursdays radio stand-up comedy show in Albany (lacks breadth of interest) 2. Source is the band's own web site (not independent) 3. These reviews are all collected and posted on the band's personal website. Some might be independent, but the source given clearly is not. 4. An "untitled" article from a free paper called the OC weekly which has only local distribution in Long Beach and Orange County, California. 5. Youtube video 6. Youtube video 7. Another OC Weekly article 8. I am not entirely certain what this citation is supposed to support and cannot review its content but it looks like the only reason the band would be mentioned is because of its name, which makes this a trivial mention. 9."CD Baby" is an online music store like iTunes and not a viable method for establishing notability 10. Another OC Weekly quote. 11. The Demented Music Database is an appearance in that database (i.e., a trivial mention with no in-depth coverage). 12. Youtube video 13. Band's own website 14. Youtube again 15. This is a home video news and reviews website run by a single individual— not indicative of broad public interest 16. This is a campaign website for raising money for a tv show (lacks independence) 17. This comes from ChillerTV, which has no written content, only links to various video clips 18. This comes from HeebMagazine.com, a Jewish-themed website which I suspect has a limited audience 19. This is a Polish radio station "top 20" list appearance (only a passing mention, no depth of coverage) 20. Again, the OC Weekly ... There are 23 more "references". These include more from the band's own web site, more Youtube videos, some listings at Allmusic.com, two campus newspaper publications, a VERY brief mention by the LA Weekly, some links from a promoter (BigWheel), and a Huffington Post article in which the band is not actually mentioned anywhere as well as two or three others which are highly suspect of being in the same category (i.e.;, of not actually mentioning the band).

I understand this is a crazy, whacky endeavor to create some crazy, whacky music, but I am not convinced, even based on what at first glance looks like "a lot" of evidence, that it is, in fact, notable by Wikipedia standards. This article needs in-depth (non-trivial) coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary, and verifiable sources with significant readership, and what I am seeing is a large number of problematic sources pulled together to present the subject as notable when it is perhaps not. Are there no better sources for this article, sources that do meet the standards? KDS 4444 Talk  10:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as this sure seems acceptable at first but I also found nothing better than a few local links at News, browsers and Highbeam, hardly much to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I've done the most work on this page, so I thought I might as well chime in. OC Weekly, Fearnet, Heeb, Broowaha and Allmusic all have their own pages as notable publications, so I don't see why sourcing them wouldn't count for notability, especially since you can find a myriad of other articles which also use them as sources. The YouTube videos are physical evidence of the band's appearances on The Tyra Banks Show, Tom Green's House Tonight, America's Got Talent and spots on ABC, NBC and the Game Show Network, all of which is notable media coverage. The archived pages on the band's own webpage are physical evidence of reviews in Maximumrocknroll, LA Weekly and Thrasher, all of which are notable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Plus, the band has established links to notable bands including Green Jellÿ (whose own article, might I add, has only ten references, only three of which are to publications with Wikipedia accreditation, including Allmusic). The Antyradio reference is at least one source to show the band's received international coverage (there are more foreign websites who've mentioned them, but Antyradio was the only one with a Wiki article). The Huffington Post article doesn't mention the band name, though it does mention the name of the lead singer and the band was named and featured in the (now defunct) video which was attached to the article.

The rest were admittedly filler (student newspapers, independent publications without Wiki articles, etc.), but what's been provided above should be enough to establish notability. I can re-work the references and work to add more, but it seems like overkill to outright delete the article. Skibz777 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So the article as it is has a fair amount of WP:CITEOVERKILL in it. This is kind of what I suspected.  It is in part because of this that I began to doubt the subject's notability— too many citations is sometimes a bad thing, and this article had too many citations. Regarding the other issues just mentioned:
 * the fact that OC Weekly has its own Wikipedia article does not mean that it can de facto be considered a reliable, meaningful indicator of notability for other articles, though I completely understand the misconception. Likewise, identifying an "international" source does not mean the band therefore has worldwide notability.  What matters is if that source itself has a significant worldwide readership.
 * YouTube videos are almost never considered evidence of notability because they have no editorial oversight and anyone can make and post them. If the band has actually appeared in one of the TV shows mentioned, then we would need to see a link to a place that says so (like an article in the Hollywood Reporter that goes something like, "Chickenheads make a splash on Tyra Banks").
 * Using Allmusic as a source to prove notability is problematic because Allmusic's objective is to cover everything— every record ever made by anyone. So showing up on Allmusic is not an indicator of notability, only of existence (though information from it can certainly be used to add information to an article whose notability has already been established via other means).
 * Archived pages on the band's own website don't take us where we need to go: we need to go to the sources themselves, not through a filter.
 * Being associated with another notable band is problematic for the same reason that the spouses of famous people are not independently notable: notability is not inherited, it has to be established independently.
 * If the article's sources can be trimmed down and we can see the original links to the ones that really will support a claim of notability, then I'd have no problem with keeping the article. Do you think you can do this?   KDS 4444  Talk  01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll definitely start re-working the references, especially since I've found a few more doing some searches on Google News and even some of the older '90s coverage from the archived pages. There are a few obstacles here and there, though: Take the Tyra Banks appearance, for instance: other than the YouTube video being physical evidence, the only solid mention of it found online is in press bios (not an independent source) and OC Weekly, which comes back to the issue of credibility.

As far as what's on the archived pages, most of their early press coverage stretches back to the '90s; unless if the pertinent info is all that's required (publication, author, date, issue, page), wouldn't I need to provide a physical link or copy of the text?

Other than that, I think I have enough to start with. Skibz777 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This has significant coverage in notable sources. FYI - Having "too many" citations seems like one of the oddest thought processes ever on Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!"  07:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not always - WP:BOMBARDMENT can, unfortunatly, be a thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting...I'd never read those pages on notability before (Bombardment, Wikipuffery, Masking, etc.). At the risk of rousing any suspicion, I feel I should clarify that I didn't create the Chicken Heads' page; it had been up for about six years by the time I started working on it in 2013, so notability was never a concern of mine. Much like I've done for several bands (most notably The Aquabats, which I modeled the RCH page after), my intention was to create a comprehensive entry based on whatever references I could find. In retrospect, I do see a lot of "puffery" and apparent name-dropping, some of which I've deleted from the article (for example, the feud with The Aquabats, based on one OC Weekly article, which is more trivia than important biographical information, and the extensive list of media appearances which include a lot of non-notable guest spots on independent web shows and cable access). I may also remove the sub-section on the video game and reduce it to a few sentences in the main biography, since the game itself didn't receive wide coverage. Other than that kind of restructuring, I've done away with the most problematic references (YouTube, CDBaby, the band's personal website (except for explaining their fictional backstory), etc.), but what remains is the bulk of what notable references this page has for the time being. Skibz777 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been relisted twice with no clear consensus. As the page stands now with its current references, re-organized by the suggestions made by the user who submitted it for deletion, are there any glaring violations which need immediate attention? Skibz777 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (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.