Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math and Physics Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 20:56, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Extremely borderline as regards WP:MUSIC, though four releases on Matinee are reasonable, but it's the reviews that tip it - Pitchfork and Popmatters are not trivial. Black Kite 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Math and Physics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable band, doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BAND. I put a speedy tag on the article, the article's creator put on a hangon tag, and therefore another editor made the incorrect assumption that a contested speedy requires an AfD. But since the third editor removed the speedy tag, we have to come here. Corvus cornixtalk 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. All significant contributions by a single deleted editor or anon with no other contribs. Related articles (albums, EPs) should easily pass speedy if this goes through.J293339 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable band, only releases on a non-notable label. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Labelmates of The Lucksmiths and Tullycraft. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being label mates of a notable band (and I'm not saying those are) is not a notability criterion under WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornixtalk 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't the Popmatters Best Indy 2006 award and Pitchfork review constitute nontrivial third party coverage? Also, rename to "Math and Physics Club (band)" and set up a disambiguation page. People searching for "math and physics club" are likely not looking for this band. AfD hero (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that depends on what you mean by "nontrivial".J293339 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the pitckfork review [1] is a pretty in-depth coverage, and pitchfork media are very well-respected music critics. Popmatters (also well-respected music critics) provide in-depth coverage in their review here: [2], and award the band "Best of Indie-pop 2006" here: [3]. I think these references pass the nontrivial bar by quite a margin. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anybody else is unaware, Pitchfork is a webzine with no editorial policy and a reputation for covering obscure bands because they are obscure. You know that annoying guy at the record store that only listens to music nobody's heard of? That's Pitchfork. As for Popmatters, it's kinda tough to find any reliable info on them. So again, I guess that depends on what you mean by "well-respected". J293339 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Please cite your source. I seem to recall seeing an editors note in one of their reviews I read a couple years ago. Pitchfork is, for better or worse, the most influential review publication - print or web - for indie music. AfD hero (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the one citing Pitchfork as a source. I believe, in this instance, that the burden is on you to show that it is a reliable one, not an influential one. J293339 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- pitchforkmedia.com is linked to from over 5,000 wikipedia articles, most of these using it as a review source. [4] AfD hero (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the one citing Pitchfork as a source. I believe, in this instance, that the burden is on you to show that it is a reliable one, not an influential one. J293339 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Please cite your source. I seem to recall seeing an editors note in one of their reviews I read a couple years ago. Pitchfork is, for better or worse, the most influential review publication - print or web - for indie music. AfD hero (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anybody else is unaware, Pitchfork is a webzine with no editorial policy and a reputation for covering obscure bands because they are obscure. You know that annoying guy at the record store that only listens to music nobody's heard of? That's Pitchfork. As for Popmatters, it's kinda tough to find any reliable info on them. So again, I guess that depends on what you mean by "well-respected". J293339 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the pitckfork review [1] is a pretty in-depth coverage, and pitchfork media are very well-respected music critics. Popmatters (also well-respected music critics) provide in-depth coverage in their review here: [2], and award the band "Best of Indie-pop 2006" here: [3]. I think these references pass the nontrivial bar by quite a margin. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that depends on what you mean by "nontrivial".J293339 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AfD hero's point about Pitchfork Media is a fair one to make, even if influential does not always mean reliable. A quote from Time magazine ("An insider's guide to indie rock", p. 50, April 4 2005): "These days, influence resides in places like Pitchforkmedia.com, a website with the clout of Rolling Stone or Spin." Besides Pitchfork and PopMatters, the band has also had significant mentions in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and I've added those citations just now. In my view, it's enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to see a significant source, such as the P.I., that just reports on music rather than trying to influence it, now there's a bit of a depth of coverage issue. Of the articles in question [5] [6], only one is actually about M&PC, and it's under 200 words, a good chunk of which is pretty boilerplate stuff. Last I checked, getting mentioned in the paper didn't warrant an encyclopedia article. None of this coverage, separately or together, meets WP:MUSIC. J293339 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response, and thanks for providing direct links to the articles. I do agree with you that separately any one of these sources would not establish criterion-one WP:MUSIC notability, but, with respect, I disagree with your conclusion that taken together they do not. One contentious point is your interpretation of what the guidelines mean by trivial. WP:N says: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. This means that every article does not have to be exclusively about the band. If there are multiple non-trivial mentions, WP:N does allow that as an argument for notability. The "trivial" examples from WP:MUSIC in the guidelines include a concert listing, or booking info. The second P. I. article, I would characterize as a non-trivial mention—some content can extracted from it to add verifiable content to the article. The reviews in influential webzines on their own would not be enough, but considering that one is Pitchfork and the other named MPC's album best indie pop album of the year, that does help in the overall argument to notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews in Pitchfork and Popmatters are highly nontrivial and stand on their own. The seattle PI coverage is icing on the cake. We should not be so narrowminded as to ignore professional publications with enormous readership simply because they are on the web rather than on dead trees. AfD hero (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response, and thanks for providing direct links to the articles. I do agree with you that separately any one of these sources would not establish criterion-one WP:MUSIC notability, but, with respect, I disagree with your conclusion that taken together they do not. One contentious point is your interpretation of what the guidelines mean by trivial. WP:N says: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. This means that every article does not have to be exclusively about the band. If there are multiple non-trivial mentions, WP:N does allow that as an argument for notability. The "trivial" examples from WP:MUSIC in the guidelines include a concert listing, or booking info. The second P. I. article, I would characterize as a non-trivial mention—some content can extracted from it to add verifiable content to the article. The reviews in influential webzines on their own would not be enough, but considering that one is Pitchfork and the other named MPC's album best indie pop album of the year, that does help in the overall argument to notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to see a significant source, such as the P.I., that just reports on music rather than trying to influence it, now there's a bit of a depth of coverage issue. Of the articles in question [5] [6], only one is actually about M&PC, and it's under 200 words, a good chunk of which is pretty boilerplate stuff. Last I checked, getting mentioned in the paper didn't warrant an encyclopedia article. None of this coverage, separately or together, meets WP:MUSIC. J293339 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.