Talk:New Swears

Accepted

I'm accepting this, but I will say that I had to clean it extensively. There were several sources that were completely misrepresented, such as short and routine notifications of events getting misrepresented as reviews of the band. There was still enough to make the band notable, but this had some serious issues with promotion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm giving a more in-depth example of why I removed things and why I reverted this edit. Here's a list of what I found problematic with the earliest version and the most recent changes.

• Several of the sources were misrepresented. I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but the end result is that they didn't back up the claims in the article. For example, this Ottawa Citizen source was represented like it was several things: a review, an article stating that they were on the paper's "best of" list, and so on. However a look at the source actually shows that it's pretty much a routine notification of an event, to let people know that an album would be releasing in three days time and that they'd be appearing somewhere. At best this could be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source. I ran into this a lot with sourcing in the article since there were multiple, multiple instances of this. There was even one instance where you tried to use another notification of an event as a review as well. This OC source was represented like it was a review of the event itself. However a look clearly shows that the paper is telling people that the band will perform at an event in ten day's time. There's no way that this could have been a review and I'm sort of puzzled as to how this was interpreted as one. The problem with event notifications is that they're routine and in many cases they're based heavily off of press releases. Sometimes, rarely, the notification will be lengthy enough to be considered an article, but in most cases they're 1-3 sentence blurbs to promote something.

The problem with misrepresenting sources is that even if you meant well, you're still misrepresenting a source. I hate to sound harsh, but in a way it's very much like lying. It's deceptive and it can make an entire article suspect, as the sources wouldn't back up the claims at all. I'll be honest: I almost didn't accept this because of how badly many of the sources were misrepresented.

• Now not all of the sources were the type that stated something other than what was claimed. In some places they didn't even mention the band at all! For example, this link to a radio show came up as a dead source. A look at the link itself shows that it directed to a basic page and not to any specific entry. It was used to back up the claims that a radio station named it their number 1 album of the year and the issue here is whether or not that'd be something that would even factor into notability on Wikipedia. There are thousands upon thousands of radio stations out there, so a claim of this nature isn't really all that big of a thing on here. However the bigger issue here is that the link came up as dead and even if it wasn't, it couldn't really verify the source. The same thing went for the movie soundtrack claims, as the source given didn't back up the claims. It was just the basic movie website. Something to note is that being on a soundtrack isn't automatically a sign of notability unless the film itself was particularly noteworthy. I'm not against either of these things being re-added, but they need to be added with a source that actually backs up the claims. Given that there was so much trouble with the sources that could be clicked on for the reasons stated above, you can understand why I'm fairly concerned about whether or not these claims are accurate.

• The article had some definite issues with tone. At times it kind of felt like it was trying to heavily promote the band as there were some dubious phrases thrown in like "biggest, boldest and brightest music videos that have tumbled out into the world over the past seven days". Now while this phrase was stated, it came from an article that only briefly mentioned the video in relation to other videos. The source had some issues, as it was a blog and the mention itself was only two sentences long. That made it a WP:TRIVIAL source. (It being a blog might not be a strike against it in this case since it was through Entertainment Tonight, but we do need to verify that this wasn't something that was just user submitted content and/or that their blogs do undergo editorial oversight so it does't run afoul of WP:SPS.

Other phrases that had issues were things like "quickly gained notable recognition with a variety of media outlets". This phrase was pretty dodgy and it was something that one of the other reviewers, Robert McClenon pointed out as questionable. It was questionable enough that it actually kept him from accepting the article. This actually turned out to be a good thing since there were some definite issues with verifiability. The article was full of dubious phrases, some of which were unsourced like the following one:

"New Swears live shows quickly became known for being wild, fun and unpredictable with notable ability to get the crowd riled up through their theatrics, props, and catchy tunes."

The problem here with tone was that the article was written to promote the band in as good of a light as possible, to the point where it was actually quite detrimental to the article as a whole. I almost didn't accept it either, but while I was cleaning the article I did see that there were some sources that did assert notability. It's just that there was so much WP:PUFFERY in the article and that a good chunk of this was backed up with sources that didn't actually say what was being claimed or if they did say it, it was a bit of a stretch to say that it really represented what was being claimed. You can't take a notification of an event and misrepresent it as several different things. Not only does that not verify the claims, but it made everything more promotional.

In the end I'd like to ask that my version remain and that nothing be re-added without sourcing that explicitly backs up the claims made and shows how some of these things are particularly notable enough to really warrant being given that much weight. Recently additions were made to try to re-add the ET comment, the film soundtrack mention, the radio claim, and the Punk News claim. The addition of the ET quote made things promotional and I'm not really sure that an offhand, brief remark in a blog post should really carry that much weight in the article per WP:UNDUE. The mention of the radio station would need to be backed up with a source that verifies the claim and again, I'm not sure that getting this mention on what looks to be a fairly small show (I can't find any true record of this show at all) on a local/small radio station in France is really that big of an accomplishment that it would merit a big mention like that. If it was something like BBC Radio 1 then that'd be different, since that's a large channel. The Punk News claim isn't backed up by anything at all and nominations aren't really the type of thing that would give notability. I (along with many others) generally don't add those to articles at all unless the award is particularly notable, meaning that just being nominated would garner a lot of press. The film claim I don't have a huge issue with since it's reasonable for it to have its own sentence, but it needs to be backed up with a source that actually backs up the claim.

There was also an attempt to include a trivial mention of the band in a Vice article that was added, but in general Vice isn't considered to be a RS because they do gonzo journalism. It also doesn't help that the mention was extremely brief - it was actually just one of the band's videos embedded into the post. It's not really a huge mention and it's kind of a stretch to use it to back up the claim that it was "selected and featured prominently". Was it selected? Yes, but it seemed to be more offhand, like a tongue in cheek sort of thing. It's not even really something that I'd even say would warrant a mention in the article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm aware that this is a huge block of TL;DNR, but there were some extremely massive problems with the article and I'm not kidding when I say that I almost declined it because of how badly some of the sources were misrepresented. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Cluetrekk: Please stop re-adding the information about the film, the French radio station, and the Punk News claim. The problem is that the link for the film claim does not back up the claim at all. It shows that the film exists, but does not mention anything about the soundtrack. All you need to back this up is something that goes into detail about the film's soundtrack. If they released this as an album then a track listing for that would work. However without that, we can't verify this and it can't be added. Now the thing about the radio station is that the link you provide is dead and cannot back up this claim either. Even if it did, you would have to show how the radio show is major enough for this to be considered notable. There are many, many radio stations out there and a minor radio show putting a record on their "best of" list wouldn't count towards notability at all because there are thousands upon thousands of small radio shows out there. Now as far as the Punk News claim goes, this isn't sourced at all and we need something to verify that this actually happened. Googling the website's name and the band's name brings up very little to substantiate this. Now I'm not saying that they weren't nominated, but the problem is that people have claimed various things on Wikipedia to the point where it the site now requires that all claims be backed up with a reliable source that explicitly verifies what's being said. None of these sources do that. Please stop adding this as it's starting to turn into an edit war. To be fair, I'm going to ask for a third opinion on this but I do need to stress that if you want to add these in you need to add sources that back up the claims. I'm not overly adverse to re-adding any of it other than the radio show claim, as the radio show claim seems to be fairly minor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Another thing to take into consideration with the radio station is how the claim was stated. If they were saying it in a jovial manner and not as part of an official broadcast, that wouldn't be considered official enough even if the show was very major. Radio announcers make offhand comments all the time, so something that's not said in anything other than an official "best of the year" type episode should be treated with a bit of caution. However again, there's nothing that really backs this up since the link you give is dead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ah - I see the help page post. I think I know where you're coming from with this now. I'll post there and here in a bit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• A cliffnotes version of what I posted here. Long story short, the problem with the claims is that they're all fairly minor. Neither the radio station/show nor the film appear to be notable enough to where they'd be considered something that would show notability on Wikipedia and the PN.o nomination is just a nomination, so it wouldn't be able to assert notability. The one thing to note with the film, however, is that if an article can be made that asserts notability for the film then it would count towards notability. I can understand the fear that the removal of these things would potentially harm the band's notability, however I believe that the remaining coverage would establish notability for the band. (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tokyogirl79 for the very thorough review of the limitations of the previous New Swears page. It is much appreciated. I will not be getting into an edit war with you and will keep your suggested modifications until there can be more substantial references to support any future claims. Thanks again, for all your help. One more thing...if this is not the best way to reply to posts (yours or anyone elses) please let me know how I should be replying. Thanks, User: Cluetrekk