Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inoculator

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. Looks like we are not getting any more contributions to this discussion so we have to go with the discussion we have. It appears from this discussion that the sources adduced are tangential and no evidence offered that they discuss the subject of this article indepth Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inoculator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No editing (other than bots) since two days after the article was created five years ago, edits by only one account, no indication of charting, no independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail, a citation to a band web site http://www.smokingpopes.net/ that seems to actually be some sort of shirt and necktie selling site (operated by dogs) with no mention of a band. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable. Your initiating an AfD while also in the midst of arguing an a requested move on the article's talk page does not strike me as very good faith. As to the specifics: A) The article cites two secondary sources giving critical commentary on the EP's songs (albeit within the context of later compilation albums, but that is often the case with early releases, even those by notable artists) as well as a primary source (the artist themselves) discussing the EP's background. That's not much, but the GNG bar is deliberately low. B) Charting is not a criteria of either the GNG or NMUSIC. C) The citation to the band website was perfectly functional when it was added. The site has since gone defunct as the band started a new site (a frequent occurrence for web sources, which is why access dates are used in web citations); here is an archive URL which I have used to fix the citation. D) Editing activity and number of editors are not deletion criteria; this seems to be a personal jab at the obscure nature of the topic rather than a sound argument for deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding item A – There is actually only one cited source other than the band itself: the AllMusic website (with two references to that site). There are several problems with that. The first is that if we look at the two AllMusic references in the article, we see that they both refer to single-paragraph articles that do not mention the topic of the Wikipedia article at all. Another is that AllMusic is generally not a high quality reliable source (see, e.g., comments at Talk:AllMusic). Moreover, that site's mission is not to comment on notable music, but rather to "[compile] discographic information on every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost" (according to the company itself), so if we consider inclusion there to indicate notability, then every record made in the last century would be considered notable.

Regarding item B – asserting that "Charting is not a criteria of either the GNG or NMUSIC" – this is incorrect. Please see item #2 of the listed NMUSIC criteria, which says "2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart."

Regarding item C – thank you for digging up an archive of the defunct site, but the fact that the band's site is defunct and that no one seemed to notice that until I came along and nominated the article for deletion is not a good sign. Moreover, now that you dug up the archived site, I see very little there – just the name of the album and a list of songs – no indication of notability.

Regarding item D – I agree that the fact that only one person (you) has ever edited the article and that the article has had no edits for five years is not a deletion criteria, but it is also not a good sign. Topics that are really notable attract interest and improvements.

Regarding the accusation of bad faith – it is not bad faith to have some prompt that causes someone to notice an article, and then for them to read it and decide that it does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC and to nominate it for deletion before moving on and completely forgetting about it.

Regarding whether I've heard of it – I fully agree that "because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable" – but I never said I hadn't heard of it and never hinted that this had anything to do with the AfD. That comment is completely off-topic.

—BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A) There are two different citations to two different reviews by different authors, which makes two sources. A source is a cited work, not the publisher of the work. If there were citations to 5 different New York Times articles by 5 different authors, that would be 5 sources, not 1. Your opinions of Allmusic are irrelevant to its reliability as a source: Allmusic is probably the most often-cited source on Wikipedia when it comes to album reviews and artist biographies, and its reliability as a source for these has been upheld numerous times at WP:ALBUMS and WP:MUSICIANS. That its scope is broad has no bearing on its reliability.

B) I suggest you re-read NMUSIC. Charting is not a prerequisite to notability. It say that an album "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", one of which is chart performance. Chart performance is not a requirement to establish notability; there are many FAs and GAs on albums and songs that never charted.

C) Websites go defunct for innumerable reasons. In recent years it has become common for many musical artists to abandon their old websites in favor of free, easier-to-maintain web services such as Facebook and Tumblr. That does not make the information they once had on their website any less reliable. It is also extremely common for no one to notice that a link has gone dead or changed targets for years; it happens on Wikipedia all the time. Thousands of cited sources were lost when websites like Allmusic, Spin, or Rolling Stone changed layouts or servers, for example. This is one of the perils of using web sources, but fortunately there are archive services like the Wayback Machine so some of these can be recovered, but it often takes a long time for someone to notice and point out that the link needs fixing. Thanks for pointing this one out.

D) I humbly suggest that the lack of activity may be because I launched the article at C-class rather than as a stub needing numerous improvements. Editing activity is hardly an indicator of notability.

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A) My comments stand – including the comment about those cited articles not mentioning the topic of the Wikipedia article at all (as well as the other remarks).

B) You didn't use the word "prerequisite" in your original comment. You used the word "criteria". Charting is clearly one of the criteria (which is not met, and neither are any of the others). If you had said "prerequisite", I would not have disagreed with your statement.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources give critical commentary regarding the songs that are on the EP, though they are not strictly about the EP itself but part of reviews of later compilation albums that include the EP's tracks. Commentary on the songs that comprise a release can be applied to an article about that release. It is by the same token that reviews remarking on the first five tracks on disc 2 of Garage Inc. could be applied to the article on The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited and constitute coverage of the EP's contents. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you acknowledge, the Allmusic sources are not about the EP – i.e., they are not about the topic of this article, and in fact, as noted below by Duffbeerforme, they do not even verify the existence of the EP. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that they don't have to be about the EP specifically, if they give commentary on the EP's contents (songs) then they can be applied to an article about the EP from which the songs originate. There are multiple primary sources verifying the existence of the EP (the band's own website and two of their compilation albums which provide the details in their liner notes), so that point is moot. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it stays then it must get out of the way of a lab inoculator and move to (EP) as Talk:Inoculator discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Albums, songs, and EP's don't have to meet every requirement on the notability list, so long as they meet one. I don't see a reason for this article to be deleted as there are sources from "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable." That includes Allmusic. Charting is therefore not a necessary requirement. For example, Out of Step (album) fails on all points of notability except for #1 (it has never charted, been certified gold, been a major theme song/major part of a movie, received national airplay, been subject of a national broadcast, or received a major award). However, it is certainly notable. For underground music such as punk and metal, mainstream exposure and national charts are not an indicator of notability. In addition, I find the comment that this article "must get out of the way of a lab inoculator and move" (emphasis mine) to be inappropriate, borderline bullying, and an attempt to own an article. Natt the Hatt (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources don't meet any of the criteria. The two AllMusic references don't mention the topic of the article at all, and are trivial in their coverage of what they do cover (each being only a single paragraph about 7 sentences long), and AllMusic tries to cover all music, not just notable music. There is no notability criterion that is close to being met here. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no coverage about this ep in any of the existing independent reliable sources. The allmusic refs do not even verify the existence of the ep, let alone give it any non trivial coverage. Selective quoting of WP:MUSIC above seems disingenuous, leaving of "Has been the subject of". (WP:NALBUM is the more appropriate guideline). Albums, songs, and EP's don't have to meet every requirement on the notability list, but they should meet one. This does not. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found mention of the EP in this book, but can't tell how much coverage there is since the next page is not part of the preview. Evidently would have to get a print copy to find out. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the references quoted that establishes any notability under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM - and that includes quoting from other WP articles! As an aside, Allmusic's aims are different to WP's and a mention in one does not establish a reason to list in the other. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- really doesn't seem to fulfil notability guidelines - perhaps we move any valid content to Smoking Popes? Elephantbronze (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems consistent with other album articles from Smoking Popes: Get Fired Born to Quit Destination Failure The Party's Over Stay Down This Is Only a Test. Seems that it should be renamed though. @Rob talk 15:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They may all have the same lack of notability. Consistency among a small group of articles is no excuse for a lack of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect should be to inoculation) - Just not enough reliable independent secondary sources. If there are reviews of compilation albums which include this, this content could be used at the article about the compilation. No prejudice against userfication if IllaZilla wants to use the material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article in question has been moved. It is now at Inoculator (EP). However, I think that should not affect the discussion of whether or not it should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (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.