Wikipedia

Talk:I Fight Dragons

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Speedy Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

These guys are totally local, no matter how prominent they claim to be. Click on the references, you'll see that they're probably too small-time to have a page. Who cares if they submitted a song to Imogen Heap's project? My concern is that the more it gets expanded, the more legit it looks. It's all a self-promotion thing. Free advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.114.179 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply


I Fight Dragons is rising in prominence in Chicago, having recently won Metromix's Rock the Vote contest, and winning by more than half the vote. They are playing at WTMX's Party in the Park in Chicago's Millenium Park this summer. The page is stubby at the moment, but I and other editors will be expanding it as the day goes on. Bobryuu (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, speedy delete tag was a little hasty on my part. Good luck editing. 24.149.57.178 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


They were featured on the Nintendo App for 3DS "Nintendo Video". Seems to be bigger then local to me :) Calicoyoda 04:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

Deleted concert reviews

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I'm going to reinsert my reference to concert reviews but since this is the third time my contributions have been deleted let me explain:

Since this article may not meet the criteria for staying on Wikipedia, at least not unless the band gets more notoriety that is published in reliable, third-party sources, my contributions were an attempt to add some needed sources and a neutral point of view to the article. I went out of my way to find a positive concert review and, since I couldn't find one, I included a positive post on a blog.

We have some work to do for the article to meet the notoriety criteria since it's largely (although not entirely) made up of assertions not supported by reliable sources. Chicago Tech Report, for example, looks to be a blog and the only reference on all of Wikipedia to this source is in this article. Chicagoist is another blog. Examiner.com and Metromix might pass as appropriate electronic media but the article isn’t supported by even a single reference to what would normally be considered a reliable source such as “peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.” Instead, most of the assertions are made without any source referenced at all. One is supported by a citation to Twitter. While questionable sources are sometimes OK, this is only true when "the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Furthermore, even if the article was well cited to reliable sources, the band really does not yet meet the notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles:

It doesn’t meet #9 of having “won or placed in a major music competition” since the “Rock 'n' Vote contest” is not a major music competition. Although the sponsor, Metromix, may be notable, when you look at the contest, it’s essentially an online popularity contest where a net-savvy group like IFD got enough online votes to qualify. Good for them! I mean that sincerely; IFD markets via social networking and the internet better than any band I've seen. But a competition that holds out as its grand prize “access to the green room, food and beer” isn’t a “major” competition. The only other potential fit, #7, doesn’t work either. While IFD may represent a chiptune/NES-rock band, it is not “the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city” if for no other reason than chiptune/NES-rock is not notable. At least I could not find a single article on Google that would leave one to believe that chiptune/NES-rock is notable. And, again, even if we believe it to be true, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

So, respectfully, please stop deleting my additions to this article. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you are not a band member, participant in the IFD Advanced Guard, or otherwise someone with a conflict of interest. In other words, we’re all here to advance the aims of Wikipedia and not simply promote a good band. If you honestly believe my additions are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then the article itself isn't appropriate and I suggest we simply tag the entire article for deletion. Thanks. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I just noticed that the article has already been tagged for deletion. Perhpas my three references will help, but frankly I don't think so. I'll be voting to delete unless someone can quickly add some reliable, third-party sources that indicate the band meets the criterea. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This page should not be deleted. According to notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles: I see at least 4 sections that they pass (of which only one is needed):
1. Two articles I found from reliable sources from Chicago Tribune and Chicagoist
2. Multiple weeks on the CMJ Top 200 chart. IFD's newsfeed CMJ's site
9. Won the Rock ‘n’ Vote 2009 Metromix competition which is a major music competition in Chicago. Just because the contest allowed online voting does not diminish the level of competition. American Idol, for example, allows for voters to cast their vote online, and yet this is considered a major music competition.
10. Performed on WGN news television.
Cfilorux (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Cfilorux, for the thoughtful response and, especially, for not again deleting my attempt to add to the article. I don't agree with you, but you make some good points. Here's why I'm not persuaded:

1. The two articles you found kind of prove my point that the band isn't notable. The Tribune is a reliable source, but the article you sight is about social networking and doesn't in any way indicate that IFD is a notable band. And I already indicated my opinion above that Chicagoist is a blog, not a reliable source on its own. I've tried to find reliable sources showing the band is notable and haven't been able to. And the ones I found that could contribute to the article (assuming we're able to find other, appropriate sources) continue to be deleted by fans who apparently want a positive article more than an appropriate article.

2. Best point you made. However, The College Music Journal by definition is focused on Campus radio which are stations that play musical selections that are not categorized as commercial hits. If a band can't break the Top 20 -- which is what the chart itself lists online -- it's probably not notable enough with such a minor chart. In the case of IFD, they didn't make even the top 100 of the list, and dropped off. Furthermore, unlike some of the other CMJ charts, this one is not monitored but rather "self reported" by the college stations themselves. The very reference you gave shows how IFD is savvy users of social networking and attempted to "game" the system to move up the chart, which even then they weren't able to do. Again, nice find. In the future, assuming the band eventually becomes notable, this will add to the article a bit of history when the band was trying but not yet able to break into the mainstream.

9. I agree that including online voting doesn't necessarily mean a contest isn't major, but just saying a competition is major doesn't make it so. If it's so notable, why can't you or I find any reliable sources about IFD related to it? The only place we find anything about it is on the sponsor's website and IFD's many social sites and web sites.

10. The idea for this is that a band have "performed music for a work of media that is notable." I guess you're relying here on the example of a "performance in a television show or notable film." But lots of non-notable bands get clips on TV news shows as the credits run; this couldn't possibly be what this was getting at. I'd stick with your best point, #2 above.

I can vouch for Cfilorux not being a band member; neither am I nor anybody else I know to have edited this page in the past. That being said, I cannot personally take the time to find reliable third-party sources right now to cite information; this isn't to say that it does not exist, I simply do not have it at my fingertips at the moment. If you feel that the article needs to be deleted, go for it, I will not complain. Currently, I completely agree with you: the sources cited are not particularly strong, and they admittedly do not seem to perfectly meet up to the notability requirements.
A few things I'd like to add:
2. I do believe the above mention of the CMJ Top 200 chart is notable, though perhaps not notable enough.
10. They did have a song on the 8-Bit Weezer Tribute album, a reasonably large compilation album within the chiptune scene, one that was even mentioned by Weezer's webmaster on their website.
That is all. Iaman (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Iaman. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For item 2, the criteria states “Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.” I’m not quite sure what part of that is under debate. It does say any chart, not just the Billboard chart or such. If this is not a chart that you personally feel is adequate, that’s fine, but that’s just one person’s opinion and I would suggest possibly attempting to change the Wikipedia criteria itself.
9. I did some searching but was unable to find a definition on Wikipedia as to what makes a music competition considered major. Perhaps someone can help me on this. Is it the number of votes? The amount of the prizes? The number or quality of the competition? Without a universally accepted definition of what makes the competition major, obviously some will feel that the Metromix competition in question is major and some will feel that it is not.
10. “performance in a television show” (same argument as 2) Also a clarification as to what BloomingtonBeat posted. They did not just play the end credits, they played at least 4 times throughout the show. The videos I found as proof of this are posted on facebook. Perhaps someone can help find links to these videos that are public, if the one video previously posted as proof is not sufficient and this is necessary.
Cfilorux (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, Cfilorux, you make some excellent points. I especially think you have a good argument that CMJ is a chart. Also, while it does say any chart, it also says that a band may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria, not that it necessarily is notable. Some of this is like obscenity in that we'll each know it when we see it. Consequenelty, as you imply, there's room for disagreement. It's also important to note that even if the band meets the notoriety criteria (upon which we agree to disagree), the article must also meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. In my judgment the article doesn't yet measure up. But reasonable people can differ, which is why Wikipedia has a fair and robust deletion process. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll park some more concert reviews and wait to add to the article until there are more from the summer tour: http://www.westword.com/2010-05-20/music/i-fight-dragons BloomingtonBeat (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

KABOOM! Album Page

edit

Since "Welcome to the Breakdown" and "Cool is Just a Number" have their own pages, shouldn't a page be created for their first LP, "KABOOM!"? 2:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.112.244 (talk)

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on I Fight Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I Fight Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Instruments in infobox

edit

Should the instruments they use be put into the infobox due to how they use NES power guns, power pads, etc, kinda like how Anamanaguchi uses NESes?

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Fight_Dragons&oldid=1195554751"