Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wakes (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   keep. SpinningSpark 13:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wakes (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for musical groups. Only the fourth reference seems to be a substantial independent reference: The first two seem to be trivial mentions (or, if they're not, they may not be independent), and the third is not independent. There are no sources to substantiate the information about their musical style or influences. I cannot seem to find any additional sources. Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, no evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Virtually no reviews of their albums in reliable sources, for example. Jinkinson   talk to me  01:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the improvements Dontreader has made to the article. While not all the sources in the article are reliable, enough are that I think WP:BAND is now met. Jinkinson   talk to me  20:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have substantially improved the article, adding many references. Besides, when citing WP:BAND, don't forget this criterion:

"A musician or ensemble [...] may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." That criterion is met because they have released three albums on CD Baby, as you can see in the references now. The Irish Punk website that I found is not big but it's independent of the subject, and there's no reason to question its reliability, plus it addresses many of the previous concerns. and, please examine the article now and reconsider. The band should be given some time to grow, and notability has been established already. Dontreader (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." And now I will quote from WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * There's one tiny problem with that: CD Baby is an online music store, not a record label. Other than that, I guess Punk.ie is reliable but the Guardian source only mentions the Wakes in passing. Thanks for your work, though. Jinkinson   talk to me  20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment., I see that I was wrong about CD Baby. Thanks for pointing that out; however, I'll quote criterion #1 from WP:BAND:

So let's see if we can agree on this matter. Here's my list of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage:


 * Irish Punk
 * STV
 * Schwäbisch Gmünd

Notice that Schwäbisch Gmünd mentions The Wakes several times, and Google Translate produces this text (for example):

Who said today's youth is apolitical: As singer Paul Sheridan midnight the song "Peat Bog Soldiers" intones one of the newest pieces from The Wakes, spontaneous cheers go through the "Esperanza". And immediately afterwards the mass singing of young guests the Irish version of "The Peat Bog Soldiers" with - the song with which in 1933 the prisoners wanted to do in Lower Saxony concentration camp Börgermoor himself courage. Since The Wakes set but the same two pieces on top of it derived from the Italian workers' movement and resistance against fascism during the Second World War: "Bandiera Rossa" and "Bella Ciao". "Irish Folk 'n Roll" called the band from Glasgow to their music style. With their newer pieces of punk rock are at least as strongly as from traditional Celtic music. But The Wakes have also ballads in the luggage, for example for social criticism football fans this evening. When The Wakes on stage in "Esperanza", may traditionally the St.Pauli-Antifa song "Pirates of the League" not missing. And in her new song "Colours" they sing their club "Celtic" and the stress of the city rivals "Glasgow Rangers".

Plus we have other strong sources with passing mentions but that also increase notability. And back to criterion #1 from WP:BAND, I quote: "This criterion includes published works in all forms". This does not exclude videos, so I'm adding this video to my list of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Do you agree with my list? If so, that's enough to establish notability, together with the passing mentions. Dontreader (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the video is a copyvio. If that's really the official account of FC St. Pauli, it's rather dilapidated.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear, who cares if it's a copyvio or not? That is not relevant to this discussion. Are The Wakes performing in Germany in that video in front of many thousands of people, who are clearly enjoying their performance, or not? Is it a reliable, independent source with significant coverage, or not? Or are you saying that this video was doctored? Dontreader (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dontreader, the copyright status is important, because linking to copyright-violating content is prohibited.
 * Leaving aside the copyright question, I believe it would be a reliable primary source, but only if it came from official materials. I would assume this is the case, based on the video's quality. But that is not certain, and if someone else took the video, it would not be reliable (having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), nor would it be an acceptable self-source.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , as I said, the copyright status is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the survival of an article on Wikipedia which you wrongfully nominated for deletion. You wrote:
 * "There are no sources to substantiate the information about their musical style or influences. I cannot seem to find any additional sources."
 * Well, you clearly did not make the slightest effort to find additional sources before deciding to nominate this article for deletion. I found them very easily. And to make things worse, you are playing an obfuscation game with the video. The quote that you mentioned, having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" applies to written sources, such as the Daily Mail, tabloids, blogs, etc., but not this video. The video proves beyond any doubt that The Wakes performed before an enthusiastic crowd of thousands of people at a football stadium in Germany. If you think the video might be a hoax, feel free to invite some guys from Commons to this discussion. However, what really matters is that even taking the video out of the equation, temporarily, to annul your obfuscation tactics, we have three reliable, independent sources with significant coverage:


 * Irish Punk
 * STV
 * Schwäbisch Gmünd


 * Now tell me EXACTLY how many are required per WP:BAND since you're the expert and I'm the Novato. Oh, it doesn't specify that? Well, then why do you keep on insisting that this article should be pulverized? Plus some other sources that I found (again because you failed to make an effort) further enhance the notability of the band. Dontreader (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe there is some misunderstanding here, so I'll try to clarify some things:
 * It was not my intention to use the video as a proxy for notability as a whole, and . I still believe that the video should not be included, but I recognize that there are other sources, and I apologize that I did not make that clear in my original comments.
 * Clearly it was not thorough enough, and I apologize for that; however, I take offense in your claim that I "did not make the slightest effort." I appreciate your contributions to the article during this discussion, and the additional sources are pushing me towards keeping the article.
 * I am not "insisting" that the article be deleted. My opinion was not very strong at the beginning, and the additional sources further weaken my stance. However, I will not formally withdraw my nomination, because I believe others may have comments on the other sources.
 * Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , thank you very much for clarifying the situation. I became upset when after I listed several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, you merely decided to question the copyright status of the video, without addressing the other sources. I apologize for stating that you did not make the slightest effort to find sources. That was inflammatory and uncalled for. I'm glad that you appreciate my contributions to the article. Thanks for saying that. I had never heard of The Wakes until I stumbled upon them in this AfD discussion. I have recently nominated a couple of articles for deletion, but I've also tried to save a couple. Anyway, many thanks again for your gracious comment, and I'm very sorry that I was rude to you. Dontreader (talk)


 * Comment. and, after performing an advanced Google search in German, I found this article. The article discusses The Wakes exclusively, particularly in the context of one of their albums. The foul language seems to be part of the website's style, so that isn't a problem; however, please let me know if you think TRASHROCK MAG is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage" (the key word here being "reliable"). The author of the article doesn't use his (or her) real name. The site's Facebook page has fewer than 300 likes; it claims to be "YOUR FAVORITE PUNKROCK-ZINE!!!" and "Trash Rock is the online offshoot of punk rock fanzines. The stretched middle finger." Thanks in advance. P.S. Please let me know that you are both watching this article, so that I won't have to ping you in the future. Dontreader (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I also added this source to support content. Folk Punk is a German site but the author of this article also wrote it in English, which explains some limitations in terms of writing skills. There seems to be a printed edition. Anyway, in my opinion this is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage". Agreed? Dontreader (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just added another German source (the official website of a German town). This article certainly is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage". Dontreader (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment., you have not taken the time to make any improvements to the article. I don't criticize you for that, but you have ignored my attempts to reach consensus by ignoring the sources I have provided, even when I was directly addressing you. With so many articles in an AfD situation, I don't see the reason for having this one relisted a third time. Your voting rationale was based on the nominator's voting rationale. Since then, the nominator has admitted that his stance has been weakened by my improvements to the article. So how do you justify your delete vote (which was cast 19 minutes after the article was relisted) at this point in time? Once again, here's a list with possible ""reliable, independent sources with significant coverage":
 * Irish Punk
 * STV
 * Schwäbisch Gmünd 1
 * TRASHROCK MAG
 * Folk Punk
 * Schwäbisch Gmünd 2


 * I would very much appreciate your cooperation to try to reach consensus. Dontreader (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2014 (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.