Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XTRIPx (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No consensus again... Arguaments are all outweighing each other, nobody can agree. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (state)  21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

XTRIPx
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was tagged for speedy deletion. In my opinion it fully qualifies for speedy deletion, as it makes no claim of significance. However, I see that there was previously an AfD discussion on this article, in June/July 2010, so I thought it better to relist it here, rather than speedily delete it. The article is completely unsourced, despite being tagged for sources for a year and nine months. The article has a few peacock-worded attempts to make the band sound notable, such as "steadily gaining prominence and popularity", but nothing objective to suggest significance. This is an insignificant band, which does things like releasing a recording limited to 100 copies. The only reason I have not speedily deleted it is that I think doing so is dubious after an AfD has failed to result in deletion. (Note: The previous AfD was closed as "no consensus", but two people argued for deletion, and nobody suggested keeping the article. I can only assume that the closing admin thinks there is some sort of quorum for a deletion discussion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sourcing or any indication of how this band satisfies the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BAND states that a band is notable if it meets one of the listed criteria, one of which is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Apparently xTRIPx has had two singles on the main Oricon chart (the primary chart for Japan), but both rather low ranked: 130 and 189 (see here). The criteria doesn't specify anything about what rank--only that it chart. (According to the Japanese Wikipedia, the Oricon singles chart was expanded to 200 in 2002.) As for other charts, while I can't seem to go back that far on the Oricon site, according to this, they had a single that charted no. 7 on the Oricon Indies Chart. Is this sufficient to prove notability, or is there something else? Michitaro (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having just participated in another AfD on a Japanese band, where the Oricon charting was sufficient to prove notability, I vote to keep the article because the band seems to fit how the notability criteria have been written. I have added references to the article as proof that the band charted and tried to wikify it a bit. Michitaro (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. I couldn't find any sources that seemed to be both reliable and that were just more than routine coverage. The fact that they charted 130 and 189 in Japan doesn't impress me much - it strikes me that WP:BAND was written with a number below 100 in mind, like the various Top 40s in existence. Time to revise the guideline perhaps? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It may be time to change the criteria, but we must proceed on the basis of what is currently spelled out, and this band clearly satisfies the criteria. And even if you insist on a top 40 placing, they clear that, because they placed #7 on the indie charts (WP:BAND specifies "national charts" and the Oricon Indie Chart is a national chart; there is also no restriction on genre charts, which are cited all the time). You would have to significantly re-write the criteria for WP:BAND for your argument to hold. Michitaro (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 11:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To Michitaro - I don't dispute your points. If we were going by the precise wording of WP:BAND, then I agree the article should be kept. My argument to ignore WP:BAND in this case is based on two things: first, it is a guideline, not an absolute rule, and it says at the top of the page that it should be treated with common sense. Second, guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive - it is precisely because of situations like this that they get updated. Of course, it's by no means certain that other editors agree with my assessment here, so I think we should wait for more comments to come in before we think about actually updating the guideline. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that we have to use common sense, and often work on a case-by-case basis, but at the same time written guidelines are there to prevent arbitrary or subjective decisions. While a charting below 100 does seem low (which is why I made the first query above), on what basis are we to say that a #7 charting on one of Oricon's main charts, the Indies Chart, should be ignored? If you can offer a good reason for ignoring that chart or that result, then I could agree with you. But until then, I want to avoid steering too much away from the guidelines. Michitaro (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point, and I'm not sure myself what the answer should be. My instinct tells me that we should only consider the national chart for all genres, as otherwise it would open the door for many bands who would not come close to getting the impartial coverage in reliable sources necessary to write a balanced article. However, even I am reluctant to make an AfD recommendation based purely on instinct. I think in this case a good way to proceed here would be to look at how this problem as been addressed in past deletion discussions, but I am not sure where the best place would be to start looking. Are you aware of any past discussions that have covered this issue? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, band AfDs are rather new to me (which is another reason I posed the above question). Perhaps there is some set of esoteric guidelines based on past precedent that those who haunt the band AfD pages use to judge these things (but given that this has been posted there for about three weeks without anyone mentioning any such precedents, I suspect it's up to us). Of course, one reason to have written guidelines is to avoid having to depend on the old and experienced to provide the esoteric rules, and thus to enable the relatively new to participate without harming continuity. I did participate in one AfD in which a seemingly more experienced user noted that simple charting has in the past been sufficient to prove notability. It was in part based on that statement that I voted to keep this. Michitaro (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (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.