Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteberg


 * 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. Consensus appears to be failure of WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in third party independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whiteberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable muical group. There are no non-trivial references in the article itself and I have not been able to find any reviews, articles or other reliable sources that would confirm notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article does not assert notability. RadManCF (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Whiteberg are an obscure group of artistes; this is part and parcel of their mystique and also forms the basis of their attraction to fans. Such a fact would require their agents to be extremely selective when submitting work for review. That aside; because Whiteberg have been working on material for over 35 years; many pervious reviews, especially in the case of earlier albums, have been lost. Historically, reviews appeared in many discontinued fanzines and mail-art publications, such as 'At a Glance' by M. A. Longbottom However, reviews, articles and other sources, have now been included in the account in order to confirm notability. Whiteberg are also well known and respected by several commonly known musicians, to which references can be provided; notably: Pete Dello, Julian Cope and Moritz Reichelt (founder member of Der Plan)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.96 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obscurity in no way hinders notability. Both Jandek and The Residents have no problems establishing notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment With the greatest respect, neither Jandek or The Residents can be described as obscure since their work is available at Amazon.com or indeed any large record store such as HMV Group, Tower Records or Virgin Megastores. JoshuaMoser (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep To call a band non-notable, that has been seriously working for years, published a couple of albums AND proven to have a unique artistic position, is beyond my understanding of Wikipedia. What DO you call notable then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professortiki (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notability in Wikipedia is defined by the consensus policy at WP:NOTABILITY.  Specific guidelines for bands and musicisans is found at WP:BAND.  In short, the guidelines suggest that the band must be the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works", have had a single of album on any country's national charts, produced a gold record, won a major award or major music competition, has produced music that has been placed in rotation by a major radio network, etc.  If we can find sources that confirm this, the band meets notability standards of Wikipedia and should be kept.  Notability must be verified by such sources.  To quote from WP:MUSIC:  "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."  Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: In accordance with WP Guide to deletion, I note the contribution in this debate of a new user, Professortiki.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are absolutely no sources to back up any of the claims, other than the band's website. As such, this fails WP:BAND. Most of the claims to any kind of notability stem from some vague association to notable artists who are cliamed to be supporters. Without third-party sources, none this is verifiable. If we removed all the unsourced claims, we wouldn't be left with much. Wikipedia cannot be used to establish notability. Unfortunately, some artists will always fly under the radar until someone picks up their cause. If in the future an unrelated person writes about them in a significant way, they could achieve some sort of cult notability. But right now we can only go by what's published.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless 3rd party reliable sources are found to back up any of the information on the article this is a delete. Right now we have nothing more then a guy who put out CDs on his own for decades.  There also seems to be a pretty clear COI here.  I would also like to take the time to ask that the author of this article stop creating new articles and stop spamming other articles. Ridernyc (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Any spamming must have been completely unintentional. I am sure that the author was only responding to the 'Orphan' comment on the page. From his or her perspective, he or she was simply adding quite correct information to articles. JoshuaMoser (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless reliable sources can be found, this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would seem, therefore, that notoriety or fame are the only criteria for entry. What ever happened to creativity, innovation and talent? JoshuaMoser (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews, other than on the bands website, have been provided in 'External Links.' JoshuaMoser (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are two of the keep !votes above from the same person?  See this history showing edit by JoshuaMoser to !vote from 212.183.140.96.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Intriguing.  Dloh  cierekim  01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I feel that many of the 'Delete' remarks, here, have been made only in the interests of protocol, and not at all in the interests of wikipedia users. Please consider the idea that the status quo might need to be challenged, in order for us to move forward. Inability to deviate only results in stagnation: See the Barry Miles book; 'London Calling,' for reference to this notion.  JoshuaMoser (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete despite JoshuaMosher's efforts, subject remains a band that has not been signed by a major label and otherwise does not meet WP:BAND. When people propose changing the rules so that their article of interest may be included, they have basically conceded that the article does not meet inclusion criteria. However, the article itself says the albums were "self-released". Wikiepdia policies are based on consensus rather than impassioned pleas and cries of "stagnation." Working hard for years they may have been. That effort does not equate to notability. One of the apologists above concedes they are "obscure," and calls the cause of the lack of sources their lengthy career. We now have access electronically to records going back in some cases for centuries. There is nothing at Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. 1983 is not so far back in time that we should not be able to find any trace of this band were it notable. I have the 1983 edition of The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll on my bookself. It is available on Google Books.  In searching the 1983, 1995 and 2001 editions of  The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll, there is no mention of the subject. Creativity, innovation and talent are often in the eye of the beholder, and it is true that notability is not always equated with those traits. As Encyclopedists, we do not judge on those terms; all we have is notability. That too is often in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion I am not seeing it at this time with this article.   Dloh  cierekim  01:20, 4 March 2010 (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.