Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamehendge

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The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamehendge

Non-notable. Verging on fancruft. No inline cites. No reliability. How can songs have a fictional setting. Any useful information can be merged into songs that are 'set' in Gamehendge. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This saga is the backbone of many of Phish's songs. The songs in this article don't have their own articles; most of them redirect back to their album articles. I don't see the sense in advocating that this article be destroyed to create several related articles. Not having inline cites is not grounds for deletion, and the reliability rests on the external links. As for not understanding how songs can have a fictional setting, I'm not sure what that has to do with whether this article should be deleted, but if a song tells a story about a place that doesn't exist, it would be a "fictional setting". — Music Maker 5376 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Phish. It needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of their subject to meet notability guidelines. I can't find any. The external links cited in the article at present don't count as independent reliable sources. If the songs that use this fictional world aren't notable themselves then why should Gamehendge be? Any relevant info worth keeping can be kept in the band's article. --Beloved Freak 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about these? This? This? Perhaps you couldn't find any because you didn't bother looking. — Music Maker 5376 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did bother looking, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered commenting. Phish.net appears to be a fansite, doesn't really count as an independent secondary reliable source. This book seems to cover it somewhat, and may count, but I'm not really seeing significant coverage. The article doesn't really show the subject to be notable either, in my opinion. If notability was clear from the article, and backed up by multiple reliable sources, I would possibly agree with keeping the article. I just can't see it meeting guidelines as it is.--Beloved Freak 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phish.net is run by Ellis Godard, who also runs one of Phish's charities -- The Mockingbird Foundation. While working on Phish, we had the same question regarding Phish.net. Please see the discussions here, here, and here. It's billed as "Phans for Phans", but the guy who runs it has a close, personal relationship with the band. Generally, news updates, "What's going on with the band", things like that are taken with a grain of salt -- we (I) wait for third-party confirmation -- but it's a great source for all things Phish, historically.

This book, at some 800 pages and in its 14th Edition, is generally considered the authority on Phish. It is provided by The Mockingbird Foundation.

"Significant coverage", in this case must be looked at relatively. Phish, as a rule, did not receive the same kind of press as mainstream bands -- they had one video on MTV in a 20 year career -- and nonetheless were able to draw crowds of close to 100,000 fans. (See the picture of the crowd on The Lemonwheel -- that crowd was about mid-sized in their largest concerts.)

This song cycle is an extraordinarily notable aspect of their career. Its lore is woven through Phish's entire career. Songs from it would show up on playlists from time to time, but, as a whole, they were performed together, I believe, three times. Those shows are considered the holy grail of Phish -- the band that Rolling Stone called "the most important band of the nineties." — Music Maker 5376 03:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MusicMaker5376, I am persuaded that notability guidelines are met.--Beloved Freak 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore satisfies WP:GNG. The article has several reliable references, in the External links section. Also, the topic is significant to the music and history of Phish. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Per MusicMaker5376's comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:19, 22 July 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.