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.
lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, notability is not demonstrated here RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(talk) 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
since your request for notability I added reports from news sources: District of Sound band interview ,The Northwest Current coverage of a performance, preview to a future performance, and description of recording process, as well as an article from the Little Hoya. If these do not satisfy the notability requirement as I read it here on Wikipedia, please reveal exactly what is required in such an article. --M6arate (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now cited two articles from The Washington Post from June 3rd, 2009. --M6arate
This isn't a game of "find their name mentioned somewhere". There has to be significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources which "address the subject directly in detail". These recently added references dont do much to establish notability here. They appear to be simple schedules about appearances rather than articles on the band itself. ,--RadioFan (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NW Current is a full article about their music, performances, and recording setup. The post article briefed artists to perform at the fort reno concert series, and power pirate is part of this article. The various interviews cited were not "finding their name somewhere" but rather actual interviews about the band regarding their training, method, policy, and ability of the members. Shall I write a source for their radio interview as well? —Preceding
Earlier, User:Fuhghettaboutit removed the deletion notice from the page, saying it had just barely enough credentials to pass. Since then, several more have been added. I would like to work with you to get this page to be acceptable to your interpretation of the wikipedia standards. (When compared to that of User:Fuhghettaboutit ) The several interviews cited satisfy the notability requirement- being 3rd party sources addressing the subject in detail, as you said to m6arate on the Power Pirate Articles for deletion page.
If you have nothing more to add, please say so and remove the deletion tag. Otherwise, Let me know what needs to be done and I will work on this article until it meets your approval.
Thank you for working to maintain high standards on Wikipedia. --96.255.246.53 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article has been improved, I still dont think it meets inclusion guidelines. There are a lot of footnotes but the vast majority are blogs or primary sources. I'm only seeing a single 3rd party reference in a local newspaper where the band is the subject of the article. The Washington Post refs do not help establish notability here as these articles appear to be simple calendar entries rather than significant coverage on the band itself. At this point other editors need to weigh in on the article and give their opinion.--RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The post seems to pass Wikipedia's criterion. While the edits RadioFan suggested that have now been made were helpful, at this point it seems that the page has met the quality standards required for a post to avoid deletion. --64.129.84.194 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I declined speedy deletion because the criterion for speedy deletion I declined under is a very low bar, being simply an *indication* of importance or significance, which the sources do indeed show. At AfD (where we are now) the community considers on the merits whether an article meets our various inclusion policies and guidelines. In other words, you can take nothing from the fact that I declined speedy deletion in this discussion, as that is based on an entirely different standard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources is shown. Stripping out the irrelevant sourcing (the band's own websites, myspace and blogs), which is what is cited for most of the article's content, I see an inter-school newspaper, some local website (district of sound) with an Alexa rank of 7,701,651 which according to Google is linked to by Power Pirate band's site and not one other independent site, and apparent mentions in the Wahington Post and another newspaper but no significant coverage. This thus appears to be an unsigned local band getting some "they appeared here" type write ups for local gigs. This needs quite a bit more for inclusion in a tertiary source encyclopedia. To make that clear, if you strip away every word but what can be verified through the reliable sources, it would appear to me we would have a one sentence article, in the nature of "they exist" and "they played a gig here".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a broader look at citing sources, does Wikipedia consider a reliable news source printing a quote from someone of high enough standard to consider it to be a fact? How would a wiki verify such 'do-it-yourself' activities, if the only evidence is 'it happened' in conjunction with 'they did not pay someone to do it for them' and their word on an interview. They are unsigned, yes- but that is a part what makes their success all the more significant. If I reworked the page, removing things from the version which Barack Obama Chess created and using only sources from the Kate Pierce, Northwest current article- would the article stand? This source has been thrown aside as not credible, but I do not see why- it is a mainstream newspaper in NW DC and the surrounding area- and It does have enough facts to write a brief Wikipedia article. And yes- Power Pirate does link to DOS from their site- crediting a quote to its source. District of Sound may not have a high internet volume, but their write-ups are well-written and regarding relevant music in the DC area. --96.255.246.53 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article attributes its sources, and shows notability with it's interviews and review article references. I agree with above- The District of Sound may be a small source, but is verifiable none the less. --M6arate (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — M6arate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't Delete Even accepting that the Little Hoya is a "questionable source" and that the Power Pirate website is a "source on itself", I would say that it is in accordance with Wikipedia WP:SELFPUB in that the article is neither 1) "Unduly self-serving" nor 2) "based primarily on such sources." Barack Obama Chess (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — Barack Obama Chess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The band's website isn't just self published, it's a primary source and does nothing to establish notabilty.--RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is slim, but gains notability from the Northwest Current newspaper article, as well as the numerous interviews. Although the article is short- it is concise. Several unnecessary things I would trim out. I'll get rid of some of the extra bits now. --Sabrebattletank (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible they qualify for #7 WP:BAND "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" for their age or unique electronic rock sound. This is a combination not found anywhere else in the DC scene. --Sabrebattletank (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That describes them as unique but has nothing to do with the "local scene" in the city of Washington DC. Washington DC is not known for electronic rock. I wouldn't call this band prominent either.--RadioFan (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be "prominent," just the "most prominent." Here's an example: while "cat" is not a "long" word, it could be the "longest word" in a certain category. Sabrebattletank (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol. nice example. But your argument is completely legit. --M6arate (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Notability passes wikipedia standards. Njessen1717 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) — Njessen1717 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. A single article in a small local paper does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a reference to strengthen notability from a music radio show piece about the band. --M6arate (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry to disagree with all the WP:SPA's that have !voted, but I don't see significant, non-trivial coverage by multiple 3rd party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Fuhghettaboutit. As a side issue, some of the !votes here and comments on the article talk have me worried about WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT puppets attempting to influence this debate. An unusual number of WP:SPAs, to be sure. Matt Deres (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (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.