Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Domino State

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 Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 (page blanked by author) by Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) ([[WP:Non-admin closure|Non-admin closure) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Domino State

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of WP:BAND. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails all criteria? That's incorrect - the band clearly meets criteria 1 and 4. Check the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page's references amount to some general festival websites, a page on Coldplay's website indicating that this band has released an album (admittedly, Coldplay appears to have liked them enough to give them the publicity), and some local coverage from the BBC. No indications that they have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works" (WP:BAND criterion 1) or "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" (criterion 4). The band have appeared at a few festivals, and those festivals have announced their presence, but not provided "significant coverage", and the band does not appear to have engaged in any national or international tours that could have received any coverage. (Opening for another band in their significant tour does not count.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. criterion 1), as referenced, the band have received coverage in DrownedinSound and Clash magazine as well as numerous other online and print media (I will add more, including The Sunday Times and The Independent).

Re. criterion 4), footnote 7 provides reference of the band's last national headline tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Footnote 7 is titled "The Domino State: Album, single and tour next month", which seems to hint that a tour is upcoming, but the article does not mention the tour at all (is it a grand tour of the entire UK, or a tour of local pubs in their home county?). It hardly counts as "significant coverage of a national or international tour" as required by WP:BAND. As for the coverage provided by the Drowned in Sound and Clash websites, these both appear to be blogs. Not being familiar with the British music scene, I will invite others to comment on the significance of coverage at these sites. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drowned in Sound and Clash certainly aren't blogs - the former is the UKs largest independent music website (arguably the British equivalent of Pitchfork media) and Clash magazine is a nationally distributed print music magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Festival references now updated to relevant reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re. footnote 7, the article clearly lists the four date national UK tour - Manchester, Nottingham, London and Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My bad -- I didn't read past the break. The "national tour" consists of four dates. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not an expert on reliable sources, but I think the airtime on 6Music, the recognition in The Times as a "hottest download" and the tour of Germany between them are enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BAND Criterion 11 requires that a band be placed in rotation, not a single play, as this band received on 6Music. And I will leave it to others to decide whether 4 dates constitutes a tour, but the criteria at WP:BAND require not only a tour, but significant coverage of the tour. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the updated referencing and concede that criterion 1 at least has been met? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.22.203 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Re. criterion 11 - reference to German radio playlisting now included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.22.203 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the criteria for WP:BAND were made intentionally strict to prevent minor, unestablished bands like this one from receiving article treatment. They do have one album, but they now record under their own label, Exhibition. [1] I would expect significant coverage to include at least the names of the band members and very few of the provided sources do. Eudemis (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I would expect significant coverage to include at least the names of the band members and very few of the provided sources do" This seems to be someone adding their OWN additional criterion to WP:BAND. Hardly seems fair to me. However, references 1, 2, 11, 14 all mention individual band members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against the band, ref 2, “Drowned in Sound” is an online community where anyone who registers can post a review. [2] Ref 14,“BBC Introducing”, is not a published source that in describing itself states, “we support unsigned, undiscovered and under the radar musicians.” [3] It encourages unsigned musicians (no record label}, like the Domino State, to upload music to the site. Eudemis (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. DrownedinSound - that is totally incorrect. DrownedinSound is a respected online music magazine and the reviews are by contributing journalists only. To say anyone who registers can post a review is simply not true. A brief glance at the website itself and its wikipedia entry will confirm the esteem with which it's held - drownedinsound. To quote: "On March 19, 2006, The Observer Music Monthly ranked DrownedinSound.com 9th on its list of top 25 internet websites. In November 2006 it passed the 150,000 unique readers a week mark and was nominated in the Best Music Website category at the 2007 PLUG Awards and the Best Website category at the 2007 Shockwaves NME Awards...In September 2007, DiS was nominated in two categories at the annual BT Digital Music Awards - best music magazine and best podcast (audio). In November 2007 DiS was named Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards.[8]" Inhabitant3456 (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Eudemis - your footnote 2 is a link to register to DrownedinSound's discussion forum. Most websites have one. It's not the same thing as the website itself.
Inhabitant3456 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. BBC Introducing, have now removed. Please now see reference 1 for published BBC citation.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitant3456, not to beat this to death but you are incorrect. The Drowned in Sound staff listing is here. [4] The review/info by Dom Gourlay is not by a journalist. It is by a member of the community. His user profile is here. [5] If you join you are invited to submit reviews of albums. I joined and was asked to submit a review. The only requirement is that you provide your real name. BTW from Mr Gourlay's provided myspace page, he works as an auditor for the Royal mail service. [6] Eudemis (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eudemis, with respect you are completely wrong. Your reference 4 links to the staff page that clearly lists the person you refer to as a "Senior staff writer". Of course he is a member of the website forum ALSO - so are journalists on The Guardian - it doesn't lessen their status as a writer or that of the periodical. I really think you need to take this up as a discussion on the drownedinsound wikipedia page, because anyone who knows anything about UK media would understand that questioning DrownedinSound's credentials as a serious music website written by dedicated writers is a complete nonsense. Inhabitant3456 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) PS And you're absolutely right you can submit a review. Whether the editor would publish it on the main site is a different matter.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't correct protocol and will prejudice a decision towards deletion, but I feel very strongly it is unfair to name a third party who isn't directly related to this discussion and post a link to their personal myspace page. Eudemis, I have therefore edited your contribution to this discussion above.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitant, you do not edit others' contributions, particularly when they prove you wrong. The listed reviewer has an admin position, includes his name in the review and he himself also lists his myspace page that indicates he works as an auditor for the Royal Mail Service and is not a journalist.Eudemis (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eudemis - Anyone from the UK who knows about music would find your position laughable. Anyone who makes even the most cursory investigation into your argument would find it baseless. The website concerned is written by a small editorial team and freelance contributers - tightly editorially controlled and NOT via automatically published public contributions. Your own reference above clearly lists the person you refer to as "Senior Staff". Your argument is groundless and contrary to your own reference. Can you tell me how you read "senior staff" as "admin"? If you are so convinced of your absurd position on this website, I'd recommend you take it to the relevant place of discussion and not here.213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) PS I also completely stand by removing your very inapproriate attempt to "name and shame" someone not directly related to this discussion. If it means this page is deleted, so be it.213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has been deleted under WP:CSD#G7. Apparently Inhabitant3456 (talk · contribs) blanked the page. He also blanked this page, but that edit has been undone. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:58, 2 December 2010 (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.