442:
feature written by JAY GABLER of
Minnesota Public Radio, which is a subdivision of National Public Radio, and 89.3FM The Current has listeners nationwide and is completely independent. The blog was not self-published, it was a legitimately published feature on the band that should not be written off as "a trivial mention". Also the comment about CNET that a band member put it up there? That is not the case, in case you aren't aware, apps and other software for download are added to that site by administrators of CNET. The band didn't even publicly announce the release of the app they built until June 13th, and yet it was up on CNET on June 2nd. It doesn't even make logical sense that the band would have published it there before they went public with the launch of their app.
293:"Newspaper and magazine blogs Policy shortcut: WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below."
279:
Twitter accounts are credible sources according to
Knowledge (XXG) Verifiability terms. Slug of Atmosphere, a pioneer of hip-hop, who also has a record label and is renowned worldwide, publicly tweeted his support for this group, which directly relates to the article. It is therefore a verifiable source. In addition to the radio broadcast with NPR/MPR, there was a feature written on Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog, by Jay Gabler, which is also a verifiable source. It is a blog of a nation-wide radio station.
333:
were discussed on The Local Show on 89.3FM The
Current by Gabler and David Campbell (radio host), which is broadcast nationwide. It directly relates to the article and the band's credibility, and it highlights the Kickstarter they attempted. They've also had multiple interviews beyond these that one can research, but I personally feel these sources are the most credible and should be included as verifiable sources on the group's Knowledge (XXG) page:
391:. The links from The Current are the only sources that seem reliable, but only one publication so far does not transfer into notability. Nominating a page for deletion twice is not by any stretch of the imagination "wikihounding"; I nominated it twice only because the first nomination failed to reach a consensus, and it's ludicrous for you to think that a deletion nomination is on par with harassment. Please familiarize yourself with
630:) This article also has numerous inline citations for all sources & quotes used. The Band Famous are “composers and performers outside mass media traditions” that have “composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre and are frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.” - WP:BAND (
539:, do please stop erasing facts. I am not the author of this article, I am merely trying to uphold Knowledge (XXG) terms in acknowledging the fact that disruptive editing was taking place. I'm pleased to see that reliable verifiable sources have ceased to be removed and I hope it will remain that way. Thank you
481:
web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement
361:
He, along with Greg
Deocampo and others are among some of the band's very well-known and respectable supporters. Tell me how these three sources that keep being removed from the article are considered trivial? I think those who see it that way are mistaken or at the very least did not take a look at
332:
above me said, according to
Knowledge (XXG)'s Verifiability page, the sources that I'm sharing below are *independent* and are verifiable. The blog is from a national radio station, by credible, independent writer, Jay Gabler. Not only was a very nice feature written on the band by Gabler, but they
445:
Regarding the consensus of the initial nomination for deletion, it was closed, and the article was up for good, although sources continued to be deleted via disruptive editing, and you once more nominated it for deletion. It wasn't the fact that it was nominated for deletion that led me to find it
278:
I have been watching this page. Not only was this group discussed significantly over live broadcast internationally, but the group was also thoroughly discussed on a radio program through
National Public Radio / Minnesota Public Radio. It was not a trivial mention as one user noted. Also, verified
441:
The tweet by Slug of
Atmosphere on the verified Atmosphere twitter account was not used excessively, it was mentioned once and cited properly and it relates directly to the article and yet it has been deleted repeatedly, along with the verifiable sources of The Local Current radio show, and the
286:
mention the band even in passing are independent." How is
National Public Radio not an independent source? How is Slug of Atmosphere not an independt source? Also 89.3FM The Current (The Local Show included) is independently funded by the listeners, which is about as independent as one can get.
625:
In regards to the credibility & reliability of the sources used in Band Famous' Wiki article: The use of radio broadcasts from
National Public Radio and Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current are fully credible sources. The Band Famous' interview with Jay Gabler was most definitely
454:: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
327:
Someone is clearly trolling on this group's
Knowledge (XXG), or I should say some people. I'm sharing the references, which I've thoroughly examined myself. For some reason these sources are not staying up in the references as they should. To reiterate what
386:
To answer your questions: Twitter accounts are viable references in certain cases, but they should not be used excessively as sources. I see no point where NPR is used as a source. Local radio station blogs are not reliable sources because they are
626:
broadcasted and archived. “Audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.”- WP:RS (
634:) This nomination for Band Famous' Wiki deletion is ridiculous, and seems to be the product of one persons vendetta against them. The article, sites, sources & Band itself are very real and very valid. Leave it up.
350:
Also here is the tweet mentioned above by Slug of hip-hop group Atmosphere, and it directly relates to the article per Knowledge (XXG) standards of using a verified twitter account's tweet as a verifiable reference:
182:
81:
551:
as I see that I did in fact mistakenly accuse you of doing repeated deletions of reliable sources, after looking at the history again I see it was another user after all. Please accept my apologies.
670:. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing that suggest notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to promote. Wow, someone published their advert, they must be notable.
557:
689:
482:
to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Jay Gabler’s feature on the band therefore is a verifiable source, as published on Minnesota Public Radio’s 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog.
135:
704:- Despite the refbombing, there still lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish that inclusion criteria are met. --
176:
514:, leave the article be--the perceptive reader can figure out what's what. Let the AfD run its course. Now, if anyone can format WeAreAllStars' comments properly...
76:
142:
221:, with no major label albums, charted singles, or notable appearances. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation after two relists.
627:
313:
660:
317:
399:
and tell me which criterion, if any, you think Band Famous meets. So far I was unable to find anything beyond the Current articles.
17:
217:; almost all sources are passing mentions or have nothing to do with the band. The band does not appear to meet any criterion of
468:
337:
108:
103:
713:
696:
679:
643:
631:
620:
608:
588:
523:
425:
406:
269:
256:
228:
60:
656:
250:
112:
197:
164:
95:
732:
40:
309:
298:
604:
685:
158:
675:
500:
370:
329:
305:
561:
728:
652:
639:
154:
36:
99:
214:
648:
635:
600:
546:
532:
436:
421:
204:
190:
218:
671:
381:
244:
91:
66:
693:
266:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
727:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
396:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
613:
The following comment was posted on the nomination's talk page by mistake. I moved it here.
519:
469:
http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/
465:
the following three sources, which according to Knowledge (XXG)’s terms are all verifiable:
338:
http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/
485:
471:
388:
355:
344:
392:
170:
709:
536:
511:
491:
Per Knowledge (XXG) terms of Verifiability, a tweet by a verified twitter account if it
417:
238:
450:
543:
for your input, and I have tidied up what I was trying to say. Also, apologies to
129:
477:
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their
540:
515:
461:
Articles from independent and reliable sources continually are removed, such as
365:
All users Wikihounding or doing disruptive editing are being/will be reported.
53:
705:
456:
An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
632:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles
495:
directly relates to the articles is accepted as a verifiable source.
282:
To quote the user above, TenPoundHammer, "None of the sources that
721:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
395:
to learn what constitutes a reliable source; and please consult
446:
viable as harassment, but see Examples of disruptive editing:
265:
mention the band even in passing are independent. Delete. —
290:
Taken directl;y from Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability page:
558:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
486:
https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520
472:
http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23
356:
https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520
345:
http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23
125:
121:
117:
451:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
189:
203:
599:coverage in independent media is tenuous at best.
82:Articles for deletion/Band Famous (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
735:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
628:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying_reliable_sources
556:Note: This debate has been included in the
555:
74:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
73:
24:
77:Articles for deletion/Band Famous
237:per lack of sufficient coverage
529:_____________________________
507:_____________________________
275:_____________________________
1:
714:20:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
697:04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
680:17:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
644:20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
621:22:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
609:15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
589:10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
524:01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
426:00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
407:23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
270:17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
257:17:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
229:17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
61:04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
752:
684:There's a related page at
299:User talk:avenueofwarcraft
362:any of the above links.
324:________________________
261:None of the sources that
724:Please do not modify it.
686:Jacob Alexander Figueroa
32:Please do not modify it.
501:User talk:WeAreAllStars
371:User talk:WeAreAllStars
449:1. Is tendentious <
72:AfDs for this article:
661:few or no other edits
318:few or no other edits
663:outside this topic.
320:outside this topic.
416:as per nominator.
48:The result was
664:
591:
581:
578:
572:
566:
321:
59:
743:
726:
646:
618:
616:Ten Pound Hammer
585:
579:
576:
570:
564:
550:
504:
440:
404:
402:Ten Pound Hammer
385:
374:
330:avenueofwarcraft
306:avenueofwarcraft
303:
302:
226:
224:Ten Pound Hammer
208:
207:
193:
145:
133:
115:
58:
56:
34:
751:
750:
746:
745:
744:
742:
741:
740:
739:
733:deletion review
722:
614:
584:
575:
569:
563:
544:
498:
434:
400:
379:
368:
296:
222:
150:
141:
106:
90:
87:
70:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
749:
747:
738:
737:
717:
716:
699:
690:AfD discussion
682:
665:
623:
611:
601:CombatWombat42
593:
592:
582:
573:
567:
547:TenPoundHammer
533:TenPoundHammer
527:
526:
493:
492:
479:
478:
463:
462:
437:TenPoundHammer
429:
428:
410:
409:
389:self published
376:
359:
358:
348:
347:
341:
340:
273:
272:
259:
211:
210:
147:
86:
85:
84:
79:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
748:
736:
734:
730:
725:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
703:
700:
698:
695:
691:
687:
683:
681:
677:
673:
672:duffbeerforme
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
624:
622:
617:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
594:
590:
587:
586:
559:
554:
553:
552:
548:
542:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
505:
502:
496:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
460:
459:
458:
457:
452:
447:
443:
438:
432:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
411:
408:
403:
398:
394:
390:
383:
382:WeAreAllStars
378:
377:
375:
372:
366:
363:
357:
354:
353:
352:
346:
343:
342:
339:
336:
335:
334:
331:
325:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
300:
294:
291:
288:
285:
280:
276:
271:
268:
264:
260:
258:
254:
253:
248:
247:
242:
241:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
225:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
144:
140:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
83:
80:
78:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
723:
720:
701:
667:
615:
596:
562:
531:
528:
506:
497:
494:
484:
480:
467:
464:
455:
448:
444:
433:
430:
413:
401:
367:
364:
360:
349:
326:
323:
295:
292:
289:
283:
281:
277:
274:
262:
251:
245:
239:
234:
223:
215:WP:REFBOMBed
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
138:
49:
47:
31:
28:
659:) has made
316:) has made
177:free images
92:Band Famous
67:Band Famous
729:talk page
537:Edward321
512:Edward321
418:Edward321
219:WP:NMUSIC
37:talk page
731:or in a
657:contribs
649:Emmiegem
636:Emmiegem
314:contribs
240:Snuggums
213:Heavily
136:View log
39:or in a
694:Cryptic
397:WP:BAND
267:Cryptic
183:WPÂ refs
171:scholar
109:protect
104:history
702:Delete
668:Delete
597:Delete
541:Drmies
516:Drmies
414:Delete
235:Delete
155:Google
113:delete
50:delete
453:: -->
431:____
393:WP:RS
252:edits
198:JSTOR
159:books
143:Stats
130:views
122:watch
118:links
55:slakr
16:<
710:talk
706:Whpq
692:). —
676:talk
653:talk
640:talk
605:talk
535:and
520:talk
422:talk
310:talk
246:talk
191:FENS
165:news
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
619:•
405:•
255:)
227:•
205:TWL
134:– (
712:)
678:)
655:•
647:—
642:)
607:)
583:S
580:E
577:A
574:S
571:K
568:C
565:E
560:.
522:)
424:)
312:•
304:—
284:do
263:do
249:/
185:)
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
52:.
708:(
688:(
674:(
651:(
638:(
603:(
549::
545:@
518:(
503:)
499:(
439::
435:@
420:(
384::
380:@
373:)
369:(
308:(
301:)
297:(
243:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
139:·
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.