 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability
editHi Angryapathy, I received your message on my talk page:
- I got your message regarding the notability concerns for this article. I am aware of the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and I feel that there are more than enough non-trivial, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Obviously, there aren't as many sources as larger bands, but as far as sourcing for bands go, there is a variety of sources that are not reproductions of press releases, and that deal mainly with the band itself. I feel that the tag is unnecessary for the article. The Billboard.com, SunCity Paradise, and KQED.com articles discuss the band in depth, and along with the other sources, I feel the article more than passes the notability standards for Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- This first thing I want to say that you'll note I didn't send the entry to AfD, because I felt it was more of an edge case, and that as sources likely confirming notability had a good chance of being forthcoming, it would be a waste of time and against WP:NOTBURO to go through a deletion debate right now (while realizing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON might argue in the other direction; I just don't like wasting time). At the same time, I continue to think what's currently in the entry is a little thin and a clean-up tag is warranted to encourage readers to add whatever they may be able. KQED is really the only good, in-depth source for notability right now: several of the sources are primary (interviews) or self-published (websites) and thus don't go to notability; Billboard is a good source but the article's really not in-depth; the Washington Post's is a major pub review--but it's their hometown paper; Louisville Magazine is local outlet that tends to count for somewhat less toward notability. Notability can be made up in aggregate and like I say, I think this is somewhat on the edge with good odds more is forthcoming, so I didn't nominate for deletion--but I do think more would be helpful. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can understand seeing that the subject is near borderline, especially with the bevy of bands that try to create an article on Wikipedia to show that they have "made it". I originally was going to create the article in my userspace until more articles came out, but I was able to find a wide range of sources from across 8 years that discuss the band. I also agree that more should come in the future, especially with the signing to a major record label. I respectfully still disagree with the tag, and I believe it would survive AfD. I will try to find some more sources, and hopefully we can come to an agreement that the article completely meets the notability standards currently. Otherwise, I am sure more will come out in the next few months. (I also find that Googling "Spirit Animal Steve Cooper" has been the best route for finding articles, since the band name is a common term outside of their music.)Angryapathy (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, ironically I think the quickest resolution would be to send it to AfD, as especially on a topic like this, if the sources exist people there will find them, but for reasons mentioned I don't really think it's appropriate for deletion discussion at present.
- Looking at the entry holistically, the thing that really gave me pause is there's no single album that has even two big reviews; that would solidly meet NARTIST, as far as WP standards are concerned, and just generally give more solid indication that the band isn't largely operating in obscurity. So if you can find any of those prior to the next album's release that would be good. Reviews in good sources of any singles released prior to the album would probably do it too, in terms of adding up multiple sources toward SIGCOV. In my eyes, anyway. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, either way, I appreciate your input. Hopefully the situation will resolve itself, or I can find some more in-depth coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- My pleasure! I definitely think it will get sorted out one way or another; I'll keep an eye for sources too. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, either way, I appreciate your input. Hopefully the situation will resolve itself, or I can find some more in-depth coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can understand seeing that the subject is near borderline, especially with the bevy of bands that try to create an article on Wikipedia to show that they have "made it". I originally was going to create the article in my userspace until more articles came out, but I was able to find a wide range of sources from across 8 years that discuss the band. I also agree that more should come in the future, especially with the signing to a major record label. I respectfully still disagree with the tag, and I believe it would survive AfD. I will try to find some more sources, and hopefully we can come to an agreement that the article completely meets the notability standards currently. Otherwise, I am sure more will come out in the next few months. (I also find that Googling "Spirit Animal Steve Cooper" has been the best route for finding articles, since the band name is a common term outside of their music.)Angryapathy (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- This first thing I want to say that you'll note I didn't send the entry to AfD, because I felt it was more of an edge case, and that as sources likely confirming notability had a good chance of being forthcoming, it would be a waste of time and against WP:NOTBURO to go through a deletion debate right now (while realizing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON might argue in the other direction; I just don't like wasting time). At the same time, I continue to think what's currently in the entry is a little thin and a clean-up tag is warranted to encourage readers to add whatever they may be able. KQED is really the only good, in-depth source for notability right now: several of the sources are primary (interviews) or self-published (websites) and thus don't go to notability; Billboard is a good source but the article's really not in-depth; the Washington Post's is a major pub review--but it's their hometown paper; Louisville Magazine is local outlet that tends to count for somewhat less toward notability. Notability can be made up in aggregate and like I say, I think this is somewhat on the edge with good odds more is forthcoming, so I didn't nominate for deletion--but I do think more would be helpful. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)