Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Yuppie Pricks


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Yuppie Pricks

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

An article about a punk-rock band from Austin, Texas. This was prodded but I have declined the prod and brought it here as there seems to be some news coverage. The rationale for the prod was, "article makes no claim of notability (see WP:MUSIC)". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete - I don't believe the linked articles support notability. The focus of the Wired article is on SXSW torrents and mentions the band as an example. The Austin Chronicle is Austin's free rag that often does stories on "up and coming" small local bands, the vast majority of which are not notable. The other articles were university papers that don't contribute to notability per WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashaman (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Sashaman. The references don't appear to satisfy WP:NM. JNW (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has been recently updated to include footnotes.  Several notable references from mainstream fashion and music publications have been cited, including GQ, i-D, Variety and Blender Magazine.  Additional citations of well-established alternative media and online magazine coverage have been included, as well as references to airplay this artist has received on XM satellite radio, as well as BBC radio.  Furthermore, the Austin Chronicle is a highly-regarded, well-established alternative weekly that has been published since 1981, with a readership of nearly 250,000, similar in content and style to the Village Voice.  This contradicts the above assertion that it is merely a 'free rag' focusing on 'up and coming' small, local bands.  16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to denigrate the Chronicle by calling it a 'free rag', but the fact of the matter is that it reviews and publishes pieces on tons of local bands, the vast, vast majority of which are not notable. The vast majority of off-Broadway plays that receive coverage in The Village Voice are also not notable. I'm not able to verify the print GQ, i-D and Blender articles, but if they're anything like the linked Variety article, in which John Waters mentions a song by the Yuppie Pricks once in a list of songs that mean a lot to him, they don't contribute to notability. "Significant coverage" means that the article must address the subject in detail, not just in passing. I'm also wary that so many of the substantive edits are from SPA accounts. Sashaman (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of WP:SPA edits is unusual, but I agree with Sashaman that coverage in reliable sources needs to be significant in order for the subject to qualify as notable. The article titles and quotes from the reliable sources are really needed to determine notability, because they are not available online. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Strummer25 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep New references added which confirm notability of the band.
 * Keep If the intent of a 'notability' standard is to only allow bands that have, for example, feature stories in Rolling Stone, certified gold records, airplay on MTV, etc., while excluding independent/underground bands that have released albums on imprints as well known as Alternative Tentacles, and that have received extensive national radio airplay, AND that have been mentioned - even if in passing - in major publications such as Blender, GQ, i-D Magazine and Variety, then Wikipedia should just declare 'If you don't sell X million records, you don't exist'. However, economic 'correctness', i.e. record sales, is not the sole criteria that a band's notability or relevance should be judged by, unless we want Wikipedia to become the sole domain of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers and other pre-fabricated, corporate-sponsored, market-driven acts with no critical or social value, outside the scope of disposable pre-teen culture.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased, descriptive informational resource, and should not be hindered by any one individual's subjective definition of 'signficance'.  Not only is the bias in the 'Delete' comments above based upon a lack of research and basic human laziness - all the annotated references are verifiable for anyone who wishes to look them up at your local library - but the overwhelming amount of easily searchable reviews for those who refuse to bother doing such research should put an end to any argument as to whether or not this band exists within the context as described within the article.  If you wish to delete this article - go right ahead - but in doing so, you must likewise eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles on bands, artists, books and publications that have not met your arbitrary definition of 'notability', thus greatly reducing the depth of information the public is allowed to access via Wikipedia as a basic reseach tool.  Ask yourself this - by deleting this article, would Wikipedia become more informative, or less?  I see no reason this article doesn't contribute positively to the overall mission statement of what Wikipedia claims to represent.  10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Oh, please. Enough with the "Wikipedia will only be for the corporate fat cat bands" melodrama, especially from a user who by all accounts of his edit history has a vested interest in this band. The WP:MUSIC guidelines are broad enough to easily encompass small, independent bands, as long as they have received enough substantive coverage by independent sources to be verifiable. My objections to this article were that it was poorly sourced, the references that were given were all either to non-independent sources or to articles with the most minor of mentions, and that the article suffered many WP:COI problems due to its lack of notability. As far as your "basic human laziness" comment, a reader of a Wikipedia article shouldn't have to search high and low for verifiable reference for assertions made in the article, especially for a current culture piece. I DID verify the references that I could at the time I commented, and none of them met the guidelines for notability. I'd also invite you to look at a history of the article at the time it was proposed for deletion. Given that, I would say this deletion discussion has done a great job towards drastically improving the quality of this article - specific props to Strummer25 for the references improvements. Thus, though I still think the article could use cleanup with regards to the points noted in its headers, I think that the added references now support its notability and verifiablity. Because of this I'm changing my recommendation to Keep. Sashaman (talk) 19:50, 28 September 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.