Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volumatix


 * 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 no sourced criterion for notability established; even the scraps that were obtained in terms of sources do not substantiate WP:NMG inclusion. -- Samir  धर्म 12:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Volumatix
Non-notable band. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. For some odd reason, Yanksox is fighting me on and not really providing reasons. Either way, read the article and see how unimportant it is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, Yanksox should provide you reasons, and does so in the edit summary. It's a question over procedure (speedy deletion vs. proposed deletion). As far as notability, it's clear in the article why this band is notable. All we need is more sources. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And how are they notable? They don't pass WP:Music, do they? Is there something I'm missing here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something here. They were a prominent represenative of a notable musical genre in their city. They toured the United States. Those are two criteria of WP:MUSIC. Now, while the article is lacking sources, I assume the editor will now provide them for us. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Prominent? You're only saying they're prominent because the article says so. The article could say they invented punk in 1981. The article could say anything. They played a kind of music that several thousand bands had been playing for years by the time they were formed and they apparently played in Houston and Los Angeles. Any band from Milwaukee can play a show in Chicago sooner or later, but that does not make them notable. There is no outstanding reason to have an (unsourced) article on them, especially one using weasel words like "highly sought after" and "prominent." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An article must assert the notability of its subject. That's what the editor did when writing the article. Now, sources must be provided, and I assume they will be. The time you spent marking this article up with improper tags and creating an AfD could have been used to contact the original author of the article and let him/her know it needed sources. Is "prominent" a weasel word? Because I got it from one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Your inability to stay cool makes me wonder if there is another agenda here that might render this a bad faith nomination. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of a bad faith nomination. Whilst it may be ineliquently phrased, one can hardly fault him or her in context.  Best yet, let the article's AfD get decided on it's own merits, irrespective of the nominator's intent. WilyD 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'll ignore the WP:MUSIC criteria because it's possible they pass (there are some vague statements that get them past - while I see no evidence of prominence, there is a reference to some kind of tour - instead, I'll focus on WP:V, notably, I can't find any reputable sources about the band whatsoever. WilyD 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What to do? Obviously, their work was pre-internet. A google search of the name turns up a lot of auctions for their records. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always look for books in your local library, or search through their microfiche. It may be the case that articles that are otherwise viable are excluded by WP:V because they just scratched notability long ago - but this is the price we must pay to have an encyclopaedia, rather than a steaming heap of spam. WilyD 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment - Can anyone make sense of the following? The University of Texas site has some info on Volumatix, but I can't quite figure out what it is or how to cite it. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These are the archives of the Soap Creek Saloon, a venue in Austin. Business records, photos, posters, that sort of thing. It appears that Volumatix is one of the bands who appeared at that venue.  The page is a listing of the contents of the archive and how it is organized, and what subjects are contained in each box, though there is no way of knowing what specific material or how much they have under each subject. My guess is that judging from the number of different bands listed for each box, the amount of individual material on each band is fairly small, perhaps just a poster or some business paperwork. Gamaliel 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No allmusic.com entry. 73 google hits. Gamaliel 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Allmusic entry may be a source of notability, but lack of Allmusic entry is NOT a reason for deletion. Did you look at those 73 ghits? What did they say? Anything about the hits indicate notability or non-notability? PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a reason to delete if there is no evidence of notability provided. The google hits were record sales stores, myspace, message boards, etc. Nothing to indictate notability. Gamaliel 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, those hits were playlists on radio stations, sites for venues the band played, and record auctions where their work is fetching high prices. Does THAT speak to you? PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a graduate student and even I don't consider $10-$15 a high price for a record. Which is what all the eBay ones are selling for WilyD 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, sorry. See WP:RS.  We can't write encyclopedia articles based on playlists and record auctions.  Who is this band?  Why are they important?  Who did they influence? These questions aren't answered by playlists and auctions. I'm not crusading to keep them out, but if someone can't come up with a single reliable, encyclopedia worthy source about this band, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia.  It's not like American rock bands are some obscure topic that has only been examined by a handful of people.  Come up with one mention in Rolling Stone, one mention in a Rough Guide, something significant from some source, then we'll talk. Gamaliel 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I'm not going to try to sway anyone any which way, but I just want this post to establish my position. To be honest, I'm shocked and repulsed by Koavf's behavior towards me. He tagged this article for speedy deletion, which it clearly is not. From CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject (can be speedily deleted). If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." The reason for speedy deletion is so that you can eliminate blantant crap that is just pure nonsense or doesn't make an attempt to make the subject notable. Koavf thinks that not meeting WP:MUSIC is suddenly a reason for speedy deletion, the reason that this isn't true is because it's very difficult and completely agaisnt consensus (which Wikipedia is founded upon) to just delete something since it doesn't appear to be "notable." Speedy Deletions are meant for something that everyone can agree without reservation that it's terrible and not even remotely encylopedic. This article does stress the importance of the subjet and attempts to show how it meets WP:MUSIC. To be honest, I'm leaning towards a week keep based upon the context of the article and the new links that were revealed. Also, using allmusic.com, shouldn't be our one stop source for music, like Amazon being our one stop source for literature. It appears the attempt of meeting WP:MUSIC, is in the touring, opening acts, and record label. But, back to my original point: This article was not speedible and if you want to see more on this issue please see the article's talk page. Yank  sox  00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and add sources. Just because a 20-years-defunct band has little internet prescence doesn't mean we need to give up on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the lack of internet presence and everything to do with the lack of any sources at all. If there are sources to add, then add them. We shouldn't create articles and then hope there is information to back them up somewhere down the line. Gamaliel 16:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WillyD and Gamaliel. I know zip about music, but I know that there is no independent reliable source in this article. Sandstein 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A scholarly search turns up nothing on this band. Nothing in LexisNexis, nothing searching music journals, music publications, music criticism databases, or record company catalogs.  If they were underground, they were too far underground for inclusion here. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The G-hits are scraps, but they establish that the band was on Enigma Records, a highly notable label. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 18 August 2006 (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.