Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twisted Method

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Method

[edit]
Twisted Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see where this band passes WP:MUSICBIO. They did sign to a major label, released one album that tanked 7 years ago and that was it. They participated in a big tour event, but any mention I found of them was trivial. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third part sources. Not expecting anything to materialize for them either since their official Myspace page hasn't been logged on to since 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to admit, the Mormon owned Deseret News was probably the last place I expected a piece about them. But I have a hard time calling these short pieces that significant. When I see an artist/band that has only a superficial article or two like this, I can't help but think that it's just WP:ILIKEIT one step removed. A relatively unknown writer needed something to write about or liked the band, so they wrote a very short piece on them. It may not be technically the way the rule reads, but that's the way I end up seeing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an WP:ILIKEIT, hadn't heard of them (I think, could be wrong, maybe I have but they weren't worth remembering), nu-metal mostly not impressed by. Yes the coverage isn't that impressive and might not considered by some to be enough, hence my use of the word squeeze. I don't know much about how good the publications are (Mormon owned is news to me) but the coverage in my mind was beyond non trivial (I admit the way I look at that may vary with my mood). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying your vote was an WP:ILIKEIT. I'm saying that if some writer somewhere hears some local band and writes about them in a reliable source (regardless of size), does it truly make them notable? Or is it just that the writer happened to like them and decided to write about what he liked? When I look at coverage like this, where there are literally thousands and thousands of music writers from RS's and only a couple even bother to mention them, I see it as more a case of that writer liking them than the band actually being notable. Besides, if you want to write about metal, there aren't that many opportunities in Utah. Daytona isn't exactly known for their metal scene either. And yes, the Deseret News is owned by the Mormon church. All that said, I wouldn't argue too hard against a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because most of that is fairly trivial in nature. A side box of a couple of questions for the band members or an entry in a book listing bands just doesn't appear that significant. Allmusic bio? Those are submitted by the record companies or the band themselves. I don't know why people keep calling that coverage. I'd dispute the reliability of andpop.com and the realitytvworld entry is about the death of a member, not about the band. Same with the MTV news entry, it's about the band member dying. Sources 5 and 7 were addressed above. Source 8 is a one paragraph entry saying they released an album. Articles about individuals, focusing on them as individuals doesn't establish the notability of the band. In reality, if one actually looks at the sources you list rather than just assume they are good, they will see they are mostly short, trivial coverage, often in passing.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Allmusic bio? Those are submitted by the record companies or the band themselves. I don't know why people keep calling that coverage." - utter nonsense. The bios and reviews there are written by Allmusic staff writers, some of whom are widely published music writers. Sharpe's book is essentially an encyclopedia of American metal bands - the entry is hardly 'trivial', and neither are several of the other examples.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've seen on AfD's time and again that entry into an encyclopedia/list doesn't count as significant coverage. Most of the so-called encyclopedias are about specific topics (ie movies, music genres etc) and they have to fill space. They do it by adding stuff that everyone ignores because they're unimportant or non-notable. As for the obligatory, often promotional sounding Allmusic bio's.....they truly shouldn't count regardless of who is writing them. They exist solely because a record got released. Background info put into a couple of paragraphs so you know who the whole thing is about isn't significant, it's pro forma. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, every AFD I've seen where a subject has had an entry in a specialist print encyclopedia has resulted in a keep. The idea that encyclopedias are filled with stuff that nobody wants to read to fill space is a new one on me - I can't see that being a viable approach for publishers. Allmusic bios are not pro forma either - some are brief, some are quite substantial. The reviews there are on a par with reviews anywhere else. I find your views somewhat bizarre, although you are of course entitled to them.--Michig (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice the switch between bios on Allmusic to reviews on Allmusic. We were talking about their bio not a review. So let's quit confusing the issue with talk about the reliability of their reviews. Of course, this whole back and forth with you is for the benefit of other editors because, for my part, I can't recall you ever seeing a group or album that you felt were non-notable. (don't bother digging up the rare example to "prove me wrong", I'm sure there is one somewhere, I'm commenting on my observation on your tendency to find every mention anywhere to be "significant coverage").Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ok, whatever. Absolute rubbish of course, but, whatever.--Michig (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between us Michig and I have four times the edits you do, and I believe have spend at least that multiple at these music AfDs. I believe what he has said is spot on, and what you have said is ... something less. Nor, it would seem -- at least to this point -- does anyone here agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now we resort to the "I have more edits" defense? Now THAT is some weak stuff. Well guess what? Some AfD's get by with minor participation from people who aren't prone to keeping every article in their area of interest, others don't. There are AfD's that Michig has !voted keep on and they've been deleted, including ones I've nominated. I suspect I could find the same in your edit history. That you can't accept that opinions on what is or is not significant coverage can vary without resorting to the "I've got more edits" psuedo-qualification is an indicator of a number of things. I'll let you figure out some of them on your own. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, am all for Wikipedia reflecting the number of articles an editor has !voted on at AfDs where they were the only one voting in that direction. And limiting or taking away nom or !voting privileges for those with the worst records. Those !votes and noms simply waste the time of other editors, who could do more helpful work improving the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, people like you aren't in the position to make that sort of decision. One could only imagine what other gems you'd put in place if given any real authority. As for time wasting, you could have saved your "valuable time" by not returning to chirp about your "I've got more edits than you" bravado, this pointless post above that has nothing to do with the AfD at hand or the time it took to come back and change your keep to a "snow keep" (wow, again, 3 votes in 2 weeks, how overwhelming). Consider those time saving tips just a gesture of goodwill, no charge for them. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Now, why wouldn't you be in favor of such a rule? Interesting. 2) Sometimes I take more time with an editor such as you as I assume good faith. If they are good faith editors, it can save time down the road. If not, they tend to show their colors, and a positive result is achieved down the road in any event, one way or another. 3) I tend to move in and out of AfDs as I see a need. Band AfDs had generally been reasonable as of late, and my value add was therefore negligible. Perhaps I was over-optimistic. Then again, given that you have received zero support here, perhaps I was correct. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up your "if I ever got real power" fantasy. I'm sure it keeps you entertained. But don't complain about time being wasted when you keep stopping in to talk about your "if I was the king" dream. I find the coverage here to be mostly trivial and only a couple that could be interpreted as being beyond that. I, however, don't buy into the notion that one source is an automatic pass past GNG. And, BTW, I've withdrawn noms before when I became convinced I was wrong. This just isn't one of those times. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting take. If I were engaged in power fantasy, first I would probably be the "make me a sysop" type. Or the "let me make unsupported, unsupportable nominations type. Or the "If I were king" type ... certainly not the "If I was king" type. Fair enough -- you needn't be convinced, of course. And its good to hear that you've listed to the community in the past. Here, the rest of the community will make sure that the article is kept, I expect. And btw -- a snow keep means that the nom doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving -- given that nobody at all has seen fit to share your view, apparently happy to let this be saved by all the keep votes in reaction, I would say that after two weeks this is a reasonable snow.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spin your fantasy however you like. If this survives or doesn't makes little difference to me. At least I can look at the article about this group of has-beens never-were's in good conscience and know that I at least made the effort to send the article to the relative obscurity that they never really emerged from. Had one of their members not met an untimely death, half of the so called "significant coverage" wouldn't even exist. Now waste some more time getting the last word.....Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twisted_Method&oldid=1070216033"