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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Investor[edit]

The Western Investor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was a contested speedydelete that gradually devolved into an irreconcilable argument between a somewhat-inclusionist admin and a somewhat-deletionist editor over the interpretation of WP's notability guidelines. See the article's Talk page for the main points. To summarize my main arguments for deletion, the article has one real, third-party source (a blog post [1]), saying this band made "#1" on a station's chart -- which I suspect is code for their internal user-request playlist. The vaunted "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" apparently either does not exist or cannot be found. The band may one day satisfy WP:NOTE, but that day won't be today. --Dynaflow 08:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify terms, the chart referred to is CBC Radio 3's R3-30 indie-rock singles listing. --Dynaflow 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

A national radio network's Top 30 chart is a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore meets WP:MUSIC criteria #3#2 and #11. No amount of whining about whether or not you personally like the standards by which said chart is compiled entitles you to dismiss the fact that it's a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore a band which reaches #1 on it is notable enough for inclusion here. It doesn't matter whether the chart is compiled by airplay or by sales or by listener requests or by dangling chickens off the roof of a yurt or by factoring in all of the above at once — it's still a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore satisfies our inclusion criteria. And for that matter, the supposed "blog post" is CBC Radio 3's official publication of its weekly charts on its own website, and is therefore the most definitive source that can possibly be provided for a statement about its charts. There's simply no valid argument to be had here; the band meets sufficient criteria at WP:MUSIC. Keep. (And would you care to explain to me how a broadcast radio network has "internal users" rather than listeners? Because I'm at a total loss as to what you mean by that.) Bearcat 08:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearcat. It has been on an extremely important radio show on a national radio network. They meets WP:MUSIC. GreenJoe 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am sure that you meant criteria #2 rather than #3, as I can find no indication this band has been awarded a gold record. The problem here is that CBC Radio 3 is a satellite radio station, not a national network. Even though it has the CBC brand on it, I do not believe that makes it any more special than any other satellite station. As such, I do not belive it passes Criteria #2 or #11 for WP:MUSIC. Further, there are a complete lack of independent sources for this band. The only two links I can find are their myspace page, and their page on CBC Radio 3's website - which is rather obviously also updated by the band itself. Resolute 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're correct; I meant criterion #2. Apologies. However, a satellite radio station does not fail to meet the qualification of being a national radio network. The fundamental distinction between "station" and "network", when it comes to radio, is not "one station" vs. "many stations" — it's whether the audience is local or national. If an entire country (two entire countries, in fact) have the ability to hear a broadcast, then it counts as a network whether it's one transmission or 500. And no, CBC Radio 3 is not more special than any other satellite radio station — all satellite radio stations do qualify for WP:MUSIC criterion #2, because all satellite radio stations do meet the standard of being national radio networks. Bearcat 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Through the magic of the internet, I can listen to nearly every terrestrial radio station as well. One could argue that nearly any radio station potentially has a national audience. Personally, I do not believe that the broadcast medium creates a significant enough difference to qualify this as a major national network. Resolute 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then how would you define what does constitute a major national radio network? Bearcat 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A station or group of stations with a significant national footprint. That CBC Radio 3 is broadcast everywhere because it is a satellite station does not automatically prove to me that it is a major station/network. It is basically akin to being a random minor cable channel, as opposed to something like CTV or CBC-TV. Regardless, there is still the problem of a complete lack of Reliable sources surrounding this band, which is a far more sigificant problem, IMO. Resolute 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being on satellite radio = "significant national footprint". Being on satellite radio is equivalent to being TSN or Showcase (things which are notable enough for Wikipedia), not to being "Rogers Community Channel 22". Bearcat 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional... Bands are generally easy to discern and verify true notability (with regards to our guidelines). "One day" isn't today. /Blaxthos 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #2 and #11. CBC Radio 3 qualifies as a national network, rather than simply another satellite station, because of its developmental history, previously broadcasting on CBC Radio Two, its CBC branding, its reputation, and its multiple modes (satellite, Internet, and podcasting).--Paul Erik 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the sources? Reliable sources are far more important. We can be flexible on notability but never on sources. Please read and understand WP:RS and WP:V to see how vital these are to our goals here. --kingboyk 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mean to give the impression that I was not appreciating the importance of reliable sources. As the article stub currently stands, there is one independent reliable source (which establishes notability) and two more questionable sources. If an article is asserting notability and had no independent source to back the assertion, then yes it must go. But in a case where the assertion is sourced, and the article as a whole needs more citing of sources, I do not think it is completely counter to our goals to let the article stub stay, tag it with something like ((More sources)) and thus encourage other editors to seek out better sources, perhaps beyond what we are able to find by Googling.--Paul Erik 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable sources are provided, per WP:RS. You can argue all day about notability, but if the sources aren't available the article must go. --kingboyk 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat's comments - Dynaflow is intentionally understating things and disparaging them in the AfD in order to support his argument, such as his statement that 'this band made "#1" on a station's chart' and his suspicions about that. This AfD is seriously POV driven by someone who admits that he's never listened to Canadian stations, and is therefore not in a position to make such statements. Dynaflow has gotten too wrapped up in the argument instead of in the interests of Wikipedia. --Thespian 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we know your opinion about me, please give us your opinion on the article subject's notability. That will be a lot more useful to this discussion. --Dynaflow 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • cough. I said, 'per Bearcat's comments', because I agree with them, and repeating them is silly. That's a standard AfD method of commentia. But you missed that, it seems? And nothing personal, but you're simply not in a position to pass judgement on the notability of this, because of your other public comments about never listening to Canadian stations. Further, by virtue of the text of your AfD itself, and the biases you reveal there, I think it's a valid argument to say that this is not a neutrally thought out AfD. Wikipedia is an international project, and there are times where you just have to admit that WP:NOTE can sometimes apply to things that lie outside of your own culture, but that doesn't make them not-notable. Also, you said you would put it for AfD and let it stand, but you're continuing to argue with people in the AfD, which leads me to believe this has ceased to be about the betterment of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at this AfD (look up), you'll see that, far from continuing to argue, I wrote my blurb and didn't touch it again until last night (other than by adding a line that links to the WP article on the chart in question), at which time you stepped over the WP:NPA line ever so slightly by attacking me, rather than the issue I raised: the dearth of sources on this band. I don't care much one way or the other if the community wants to let this article stand or delete it without prejudice to future recreation. That's why we have AfD, so we can remove a contested decision to keep or delete from the unilateral whims of one editor or admin. However, your impugning of my motivations and accusations of skewed neutrality and some sort of Americocentrism are something that I do take rather personally. If you would like to comment on my character, do so at my Talk page, not at an AfD.

If more good sources on the article subject were forthcoming, I would drop my objection to the article's inclusion (and, indeed, the article's sourcing has gotten slightly better since this was taken to AfD), but the sources are still thin, as per WP:NOTE, and the comments of other editors show that this is a legitimate area of concern. I shall now resume leaving this AfD alone to let it take its course. --Dynaflow 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for stepping over WP:NPA; I didn't feel that I was, in my first comment, though I can see how you would feel I did, and I think you're right, I did in my second. I am sorry. I do feel there are many other bands with fewer and thinner cites that have been accepted as satisfying WP:NOTE in the past.--Thespian 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Things do get a bit heated around here. I also apologize for the tone of my response. I had been fighting off attacks by sockpuppets all weekend and was still in combat mode when I responded to your comment. --Dynaflow 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While not a well known band under the criteria put forth by WP:MUSIC, it passes nobility standards. :shrug: I don't really see why some editors are taking this personally, if they feel that the nobility standards under WP:MUSIC are too low they should ask that it be changed, but under current standards it stays. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet nationaly noted staus.cmacd 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete kingboyk has hit the nail on the head. There are no decent non trivial external sources quoted, and I can't find any either. Unless these can be added before the end of this AfD the band fails WP:Music plain and simple. A1octopus 14:21, 11 May 2007 (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.