Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vast Countenance


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Vast Countenance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability of this band is not established by the source references, most of which are (semi) self-published. The band has no songs in the album charts and anyone can release an album at the CD Baby label. When one of their songs was recently played on Dutch national radio, the DJ announced to his listeners that it is unlikely that they know the band, but that they might have seen a Facebook post of one the band members, who died in the crash of MH-17. – Editør (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, the article doesn't meet the Notability (music) criteria. – Editør (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Has independent reviews. Mentioned in Huff Po, for unusual reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post article does not mention the band. The sources mention reviews in Noordhollands Dagblad and OOR, but Last.fm and NHPopLife.nl are not independent reliable sources. There is no direct reference to the actual reviews. I can't establish the independence or reliability of Podium Info. – Editør (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The OOR review is online . The other is reproduced on their website along with other coverage & is dated [NOORD-HOLLANDS DAGBLAD (11-04-2011)], thus is verifiable.  78.19.26.160 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - First on what is said in the nomination above:
 * Except for the discography, there is not one single self published source that I have used. So that statement is incorrect. "Semi self published" is newly invented anyway and in fact even a contradictio in terminis; e.g. one cannot be a little bit pregnant either. Today I will take some reviews that are reproduced on their website though, to improve the article somewhat, thanks to the hint of user 78.19.26.160. There is no reason to doubt these reproductions.
 * Another incorrect statement is on CD Baby, which is a distributor for "independent musicians", not a label where any, even inferior musician can release whatever he likes. In the current era (we live in 2014, not in the Sixties) musicians are more and more releasing independently. As do musicians like Tiësto, Harry Sacksioni, etc. since about a decade, but it yet began earlier, like was the case with The Cats (yet started self-releasing as from 1983), The Rolling Stones (first time in 1971), and even J. K. Rowling's e-books of Harry Potter are self-published. Of course there are thousands of musicians more to name. So the way music is released tells us nothing on the notability of a musician.
 * The referral to the DJ (Giel Beelen) is not a valid argument either, since he admits that he didn't know them himself. This is not so strange for him, because he is acquainted with progressive music and not so much with styles from the Sixties.

There are better arguments in valuing the notability of Vast Countenance. The band is indeed not comparable to a famous act like The Rolling Stones. Nevertheless, it surely has received serious, positive reviews, and its music is distinctive from other bands.

Arguments that are relevant, and plead for Vast Countenance - especially when one regards the sum of it - are: The conclusion of all these arguments should be that this band is notable and its article should be kept on Wikipedia. Ymnes (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vast Countenance composes and writes its own songs in a distinctive music style, which is meanwhile being defined as Rock 'n' Folk.
 * They have performed internationally (in The Netherlands and in the US).
 * Music has been released internationally (in The Netherlands, the US and Japan).
 * Ten songs of them reached The Volendammer Top 1000, an all time list that was compiled in 2013 by the listeners of 17 regional radio- and television stations (music of Volendam is the subject here, because the village is a main centre of music performance in the Netherlands).
 * Their performances were transmitted on TV: national (on MAX) and many regional stations (yet the Volendammer Top 1000 alone was aired by the participating stations, next to that I found a performance in the program L.O.V.E. Akoestiek over here).
 * Reviews out of the music profession:
 * Review in OOR (2006): "From the region of Waterland surprisingly Dutch talent comes sailing along ... 'We're all jugglers juggling with, the endless possibilities of life' is just one of the simple, but pretty formed sentences on the album. The pliant, sunny melodies and beautiful part-sung choirs link up seamlessly with the texts. Extra little points deserve the strong choruses, unexpected transitions and the special singing. Pop as pop is meant to be,"
 * There were two interviews in 1WayWind The Magazine: No. 15 (Febr. 2007) and No. 22 (June 2009) 1WayWind is a specialized music magazine - the writers Johan Tol and Michel Veerman were in 2006 the winners of the public prize of the Best Pop Book in the Last Thirty Years, organized by OOR and the National Pop Institute.
 * Review in LiveXS (2007): "... allready praised before by LiveXS because of their musical performances ... a fresh sounding melody machine ... the more than excellent [song] Trumpet Slide.".
 * Review in Festival Info (2011): "The pleasing mix of Folk and Rock is capable to hold your attention."
 * Review in Podium Info (2011), "very strong guitar rhythm"
 * Review in the newspaper Noord Hollands Dagblad (2011): "One by one strong songs ... ‘Not a bad moment’ is world class ... inimitable melody lines ... really brilliant.".
 * After the plane crash above the Ukraine, the drummer Cor Schilder (Pan) was killed. Because of his Facebook photo of the plane with the text "Might it disappear, this is how it looks like", he as well as his membership of Vast Countenance became world news (2,800+ hits in Google News), with mentions in: Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, Times of India (among many others, just to name a few in English language). As a result, people want to be informed on Wikipedia too on this music group. Now and in the future when that Wikipedia article is read.
 * There are clear guidelines for the notability of bands: Notability (music). A link to these guidelines can also be found at the top of the article and in a previous comment in this nomination. Many of the sources referenced in the article are published by the band itself, by an organization that is not independent from the band, or can be published by anyone. The band fails criterion 2 to 9, and 11. Your comments suggest that the article could be improved to show that the band passes criterion 1, 10 and 12, in which case the article should clearly not be deleted. However, if the article isn't or cannot be improved, the article should be deleted. – Editør (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And please don't reference copies of reviews/articles that are published by the band itself, but use references to the original reviews/articles. – Editør (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like you to be more specific (with specified arguments) as I did. Actually it's just a general talk you gave. If some criteria aren't met (the numbers you give), it doesn't mean that others are not met. With some I even disagree, others are far from specifically understandable (only statements, no content). And there's more Notability than Notability (music) alone, I have been very careful in explaining so. Another thing, just a side way: if it is only that the links to citations on their website are concerned, one can see that OOG is cited literally there, and I don't distrust the other citations therefore. Might this be the problem, discarding such content would not undermine this article, because it still remains notable (I don't have these sources at home, so I can't link otherwise). Ymnes (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation to OOR was added after the article was nominated for deletion. Criterion 1 asks for "multiple, non-trivial, published works", so if you add another two or so direct references to such works, the article would pass this criterion and won't be deleted. These works don't even need to be available online, but should be uniquely described (author, title, date, publication) so in principle anyone could look them up. Note that policies at the Dutch and English Wikipedia concerning the referencing of articles are quite different. – Editør (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I count 7 (so multiple) "non-trivial, published works": OOR, two interviews in 1WayWind, LiveXS, Podium Info, Festival Info and Noord Hollands Dagblad. I count all the other bullet points as well that I gave. If you cannot count the facts, please let an administrator make the decision on the basis of the arguments I gave.Ymnes (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Podium Info was yet mentioned as a source in the article, I have added it here under the bullet points as well now. Ymnes (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just add a specific reference to the article in Noordhollands Dagblad. Combined with the already specified reference to OOR this will presumably qualify as references to "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Although one more proper reference that is not just a link to a reproduced review on the band's website would be preferable. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I yet gave enough unmistakably good references. Ymnes (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 28 July 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.