MrJeems

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Inverse order has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Inverse Order

A tag has been placed on Inverse Order requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Inverse Order

I have nominated Inverse Order, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Order. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MrJeems. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inverse Order and WP:BAND

Here are the criteria, and my thoughts:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Self published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
   • Although the 3 News article could cover this criteria, I feel that unless there is a lot of coverage by different reliable sources of a variety of gigs, they do not meet this. Doing a pub gig which is covered by local news does not, I feel, meet this criteria
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
   • As we have already discussed, RadioScope is not the official national music chart - for New Zealand, the official chart is by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, and they didn't appear on that.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
   • No
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
   • No
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
   • No
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
   • No
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
   • No
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
   • No
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
   • No
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
    • No
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
    • Evidence of airplay across the 120+ radio stations in NZ, but no evidence of whether this was at a major radio network
12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
    • No

Overall, I feel that the two criteria which they have the most 'claim' to are insufficiently evidenced. Others at the AfD may disagree - the good thing about AfD is that there is discussion for a week, and different editors will have different interpretations of the guidelines - they are not carved in stone, they are open to interpretation!

I would like to say, however, that this is not a personal thing. I have in the past "saved" articles by finding sources - I prefer to do that than to have them deleted! However, I also feel that an article which does not meet the inclusion criteria should not be included.

Of course, the best thing that the band could do is to chart on the official RIANZ chart - that would make them a shoe-in for an article per the criteria! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)