Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band)


 * 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. I'm also salting, as the article has been recreated and deleted multiple times. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Reformation (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsigned band. Was deleted A7 and is now being listed at AFD following A deletion review. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete band with no notability presented. In no way even comes close to passing WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is adequate notability asserted. See my main post below and feel free to participate in discussing it.  Wikitam331 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It should by all rights be a speedy as there is no assertion of notability in the article, but we have to be here for 7 days now to satisfy the bureaucracy wonks and one very, very determined fan. There are 3 references in the article, one is a 3-sentence review on a page reviewing 4 bands total, in the Pittsburgh City Paper a free alt weekly.  2nd is drawuslines.com, a blog with another brief review, 3rd is cdbaby.com, a music store.  Two scant reviews in a local free paper and a local music blog (the lead says this band is in SF but the infobox says their origin is Pittsburgh) does not satisfy WP:N.  There is also WP:BAND, with a long list of criteria.  This band doesn't come within spitting distance of any of the TWELVE criteria there.  If you can't grab that piece of low-lying fruit, there's no hope here. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have since added a fourth source, a biography about the band on ProgArchives, which is also a non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent source that is not self-published. Wikitam331 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article adequately asserts notability: it presents multiple reviews and multiple references from the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is a non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent source that is not self-published. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A trivial mention is defined by WP:BAND as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." Album reviews that address the band directly in detail and describes their songs in detail, no matter how brief, are not "trivial mentions" and qualify as significant coverage. The page clearly satisfies Criteria #1 of WP:BAND as well as all of the criteria listed in WP:N. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. As you were told repeatedly during the DRV, even by people who voted to overturn the deletion on procedural grounds, it does NOT pass WP:BAND.  It does not even come close to passing WP:BAND.  The so-called 'review' you're so incredibly proud of is a 3-sentence blurb in the local free newspaper among other self-released stuff.  It's incredibly trivial. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not trivial at all, according to the definition of "trivial" in WP:BAND - as I've already demonstrated. The facts contradict your position. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're (deliberately?) quoting WP:BAND out of context, it says "such as" and gives possible examples. A 3 sentence blurb is going to be trivial no matter what.  Even if it were the most glowing review in the world (which it isn't), by the most notable writer in the world (which it isn't), in the most reliable publication in the world (which it isn't), at three sentences it would still be trivial coverage and not something we can build an article with. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one who is quoting it out of context. Nowhere in the definition of "trivial" does it list an album review as an example, nor does it say how long it needs to be in order to be considered non-trivial.  You just arbitrarily decided to define the length of this review as trivial, backed up only by your baseless, unfounded opinion.  Wikitam331 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One tiny blurb in one city paper and one tiny blurb in a blog aren't enough, it's a simple as that. The example I gave at the DRV discussion, Blood on the Dance Floor, was quite fitting, and perhaps you should read through those links again.  Fans recreated it over and over, it was deleted over and over.  As soon as they legitimately met one of the criteria for notability, *poof* the article appears.  You'll just have to wait. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy per WP:CSD, as I argued at the DRV. I do agree that this subject appears to fail WP:BAND and could be deleted under that rationale. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how it fails WP:BAND instead of simply asserting that without explanation? Wikitam331 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete only trivial coverage by any reasonable understanding. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply saying as much does not make it so. Care to explain how it meets either of those criteria? Wikitam331 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the very short review is a bit more than trivial, but well less than in-depth. The publication is fine (free or no isn't important here), and counts toward the GNG, but not enough to support the entire article.  One really solid (not favorable, just detailed)  review in some other reliable publication would make this a close call.  But as it stands, we aren't there. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think the ProgArchives source with the band's biography I just added is enough to change your opinion? Wikitam331 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to their FAQ, Progarchives appears to host "reviews" by regular forum users. It isn't a professional site staffed with actual music journalists, so no. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite any review from ProgArchives - that's a red herring. Please show me the rule that says that a site must be "staffed with actual music journalists". Wikitam331 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:USERG. You called it a "biography", the site itself calls it a "review" - it's their language, not a red herring. Either way, it's user-generated content with little to no editorial oversight. There's nothing stopping me, for example, from editing that entry (just like Wikipedia) to suggest The Reformation is actually a children's choir from Turkmenistan. Stalwart 111  01:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The top of the section says "The Reformation biography"; the word "review" appears nowhere to describe the Biography. and there is nowhere for any member to edit the biography.  The only people who can do that are website administrators, so your comparison is a false analogy. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't make the distinction particularly clear either. The FAQ and the forum itself refer to "reviews" while the only reference to "biographies" is in the About us section. If that's what we're talking about here, it's still user-generated - submitted for consideration by the bands themselves and "voted on" by a group of anonymous users without any particular criteria and a predetermined bias towards "inclusion rather than exclusion". It's basically Wikipedia by committee and that sort of thing isn't considered a reliable source. You can argue semantics but the fact of the matter is that the site we're talking about is built by members, for members and there's very little chance it will be considered a reliable source for our purposes. Stalwart 111  23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ProgArchives is not "basically Wikipedia by comittee", and I disagree that it's not a reliable source. | There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that provide ProgArchives as a credible source. Why are you singling out Progarchives only for this page? Wikitam331 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF? You asked the question "Do you think the ProgArchives source...", I note it isn't a reliable source but rather a fan forum, and you respond "I didn't cite any review from ProgArchives".  If you're nitpicking "review" vs. "biography", that's not even remotely relevant.  We're talking about evaluating the source to see if it can be used to establish notability. (It can't). Tarc (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Artist Page itself can only be edited by administrators. The fact that there is a forum and that users can post their own reviews is completely irrelevant to the fact that ProgArchives is NOT a fan forum as you falsely characterized it. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt as I suggested at DRV would be the likely outcome were more sources not advanced to substantiate notability. Rather than take the opportunity to establish notability (as was claimed could be done) the original author has simply restated his previously rejected argument that current sources are sufficient. The are not. Still (in the spirit of generosity and good faith) willing to consider anything else that might be available, but I remain in favour of deletion until such sources are put forward. Salt, also, for The Reformation (album) which was recently created and speedy-deleted and has previously been created many times before as the album of another unrelated NN band. Stalwart 111  00:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 45-word album review in Pittsburgh City Paper is the closest to significant coverage I can find, and that's just not enough to pass WP:GNG; subject also does not appear to meet the WP:BAND criteria at this time.  Gong   show  20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show me where says that 45 words is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No guideline states a required minimum number of words; it's a judgment call. Others may disagree - fair enough.  Gong   show  21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - the page definitely satisfies WP:BAND and WP:N. The band is notable and the page should not be deleted. 67.159.191.98 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply saying as much does not make it so. Care to explain how it meets either of those criteria? Stalwart 111  23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. You can't just claim non-notability because you think a review is scant. That's just your opinion and has nothing to do with triviality or significant coverage. 2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  —  2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF  (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Wikitam331's explanation. 67.165.60.93 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC) — 67.165.60.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What a shocker, an IP address that geolocates to a Pittsburgh suburb. There's obvious off-site rallying going on here by fans, the sooner this open-and-shut discussion closes, the better. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One single IP address that geolocates to a Pittsburgh suburb is not proof of any such thing. You should have proof before making such extreme accusations per WP:AGF. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have presented nothing but bad faith to the Wikipedia community during this entire ordeal. I have nothing else to comment on in this matter, and will joyfully look forward to its deletion tomorrow. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not engage in false personal attacks. Your opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion and is extremely unproductive. You must assume good faith when a new editor joins the discussion, instead of assuming bad faith and ridiculing other posters. You are not helping your cause at all.  Wikitam331 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article's subject meets the standards of neither the GNG nor the topic-specific guidelines for bands. The brief album review in the Pittsburgh City Paper is fairly trivial in nature, and none of the other "sources" provided appear to qualify asreliable sources. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2013 (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.