Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Direction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Direction[edit]

No Direction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Who are this band? A google search turned up nothing, no records available to buy on Amazon, and the page was created by the similarly named User:Nodirection. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Google searches didnt have any "major" hits. Looks to be an small indie band. Corpx 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Band piece--ZayZayEM 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability. Pfainuk 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To quote from WP:MUSIC; A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:. No Direction meets at a minumum the following:
  1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

"Twisted Love Song" topped the Gibraltar music charts for over 5 months

  1. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.

Reported by Gibfocus.gi, a major Gibraltarian news provider The whole tour/gigs can be seen here; however the latter is the band's website. Note that the bands also played in Spain, a medium/large-sized country.

  1. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable

Twisted Love song was selected to be played on BBC China's focus on world music on November 2005.

According to the rules set out by WP:MUSIC, the band No Direction is factually notable. Chris Buttigiegtalk 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, given that the definition of 'nation' is a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own, it is perfectly relevant to Gibraltar. So yes, 'national' is the correct adjective. Chris Buttigiegtalk 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both of those websites were authored by the band in question. Not suitable to determine notability. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, not quite. The article by gibfocus.gi is independent to the band, that is to say, it was not authored by the band. Songplanet.com is a third party, wholly independent to the band, so therefore the article was not authored by the band. The band meet three criteria set out by WP:MUSIC (note that it only needs to meet at least one) so according to Wikipedia's policy it is notable. Chris Buttigiegtalk 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gibraltar not a country ? of course it is thats why it has an ISO country code an internet tld and a ITU International dialling code. --Gibnews 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since one can hardly speak of a "tour" through Gibraltar (how many cities did they visit?), and the appropriate "national charts" would be those of the UK. --B. Wolterding 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gibraltar is not part of the UK. --Gibnews 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep They've entered the Gibraltar charts, which is WP:MUSIC met, however, the conflict of interest is troubling. Some cleanup is necessary.--Kylohk 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Gibraltar were not a nation then we need to rename national day, Miss Gibraltar will have a problem wearing national dress, the national sporting associations will need to resign from International organisations (UEFA excepted) we need to give up the national Internet tld, plus a lot of other things too numerous to list. --Gibnews 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is ridiculous to claim that Gibraltar, which has the population of a medium sized British town, should have far less stringent criteria for notability than British bands. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The size of Gibraltar is entirely immaterial. Of course the Gibraltar music charts constitute a national music chart, treating Gibraltar otherwise on the grounds of 'being small' would be discriminatory. Chris Buttigiegtalk 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Gibraltar is a British overseas territory, and this and its small size make its charts non-notable, in my opinion. No offence against Gibraltar, Gibraltarians or even this little-known band. I would say the same if it were Scotland here: it still does not pass the spirit of WP:MUSIC. --John 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But that is your opinion. You feel that they are non-notable because the charts are from Gibraltar which in turn is small. Strictly speaking there is no difference to the charts of Spain or France with that of those in Gibraltar. The fact that Gibraltar is smaller (to say the least) than most other 'nations' is not a justifiable reason as to why its charts should be discounted. Chris Buttigiegtalk 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is my opinion, as I said, that the charts of the UK, Spain or France are more notable for Wikipedia's purposes than those of a British overseas territory like Gibraltar. Would you disagree, honestly? --John 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its arguable these days whether 'charts' mean anything at all as we live in a global economy where music is concerned and people no longer go and pay 3/9d for a single. But Wikipedia does not say that some people are more equal than others, so a national chart is a national chart, and this band are in the Gibraltar national charts. --Gibnews 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Nonnotable. I can't find a reliable source. gibfocus is a place for advertisement. songplanet is a blog site. The rest are self-promotional too. Cricket02 06:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you mean by 'place for advertisment' Gibfocus is an established news publication, not a blog. --Gibnews 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, making it on the charts in Gibraltar meets WP:BAND. The people in Gibraltar are isolated; they are limited in what music they can see live, as they cant hop on train to go to another town in England in order to see a different band. Their music culture is comprised of what overseas bands visit (probably not many) and what local bands there are. This article is a vital part of an encyclopedic topic of "the music scene on Gibraltar". John Vandenberg 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With regard to live performances, WP:BAND says "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country". Even if you grant Gibraltar the status of a country (which it is not and will never be unless a series of very unlikely events occur), it is hardly a medium sized one, is it? Your argument basically says that WP should loosen the criteria for inclusion for places that are hard to get to. Should we have an article on Hamish McWhirter and his bagpipes because he's famous in the Outer Hebrides? How about Ilya Rastropovich and his performing monkey in Siberia? Ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above vote was made because the band topped the Gibraltarian charts, not because the band has gone on a tour. According to WP:BAND ..... A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Chris Buttigiegtalk 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) A band does not need to meet all of the criteria listed; only one, and this band meets the requirement of having been on a national chart. If Hamish McWhirter made it to the top of the national chart, or Ilya Rastropovich was locally notable under the general notability requirement of two focus pieces, then it would be article to have an article on them. Is Cayman Islands allowed to have its own culture? What about Liechtenstein? Perhaps Nauru is too small to have its own culture? Trying to determine what countries charts are acceptable is a very slippery slope. If they have a chart, they have a national music scene, and we can keep an encyclopedic record of it. John Vandenberg 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm not finding a reference to prove they've even made the "national chart", Gibraltar or otherwise. I have no problem keeping an article that can back up their claims but the sources provided do not prove anything to me. Breaking them down:

  • ref #1 [1] This is a "press release", undoubtedly submtitted by the band as the exact same press release appears as ref #3 [2]
  • ref #2 is their own website
  • ref #4 is a trivial mention of a local concert appearance. [3]
  • Under external links:
  • [4] A bio of the band completely written in the first person, thereby written by the band.
  • [5] Another trivial mention of a local appearance.
  • [6] Trivial mention that the band recorded at a studio.
  • [7] This one I have no clue of the significance related to the band. Is this the so-called chart?

I still stand at Delete. Cricket02 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have just found the reference I was looking for. Panaorama is a Gibraltarian newspaper, here it states: The band has been gigging in Gibraltar and southern Spain since .... That means it qualitfies for criteria No 4: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.4
It also states: .....with 3 songs hit the number one spot in the Gibraltar Live Music Charts.... - Qualifying for criteria No 2. It also states: ...... Track “Psychotic Narcotics” received enough consideration to reach the semi-final stage, whilst the “Twisted Love Song” reached the coveted Finals stage of the Indie / Rock Category. .... - Qualifying for criteria No 9. As you can see, it passes even more than what is required. Chris Buttigiegtalk 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ...if we accept that Gibraltar counts as a country for the purpose of the spirit of WP:MUSIC. I can't wait for a run of articles on great bands who've made a success in the charts of Liechtenstein! --John 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, and I'm looking forward to all the church choirs who have had a national tour through Vatican City... --B. Wolterding 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support Leichtenstein chart toppers. Leichtenstein is its own independent country, not a territory.--ZayZayEM 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat.... That source is NOT reliable anyway. It is merely a claim in the band's self-written press release per my comments above (repeated here) *ref #1 http://www.gibraltarlivemusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=30&lang= This is a "press release", undoubtedly submtitted by the band as the exact same press release appears as ref #3 http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=80 Cricket02 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not counting Gibraltar as a country, we are counting it as the band's 'national' locality. And there is no reason as to why the article in the Panorama was written by the band themselves as you claim, it is not in the first person for a start. Excluding Gibraltar from WP:BANDS on the grounds of being small is discriminatory. Chris Buttigiegtalk 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same content submitted to two sources only proves to me that it is self-written press release, in fact, the one at gilbraltarlivemusic.com clear states "Full Press Release", thereby would have been submitted by the band. These are all self-claims and notability is not yet established in my opinion. Cricket02 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had worked in a newspaper you might understand that journalists are essentially lazy and given a press release often publish it intact. However, they usually ensure its accurate as by republishing it they are giving it credibility. Panorama is a daily printed newspaper. You might also find that a story will be reproduced in hundreds of dailys because its been issued by an agency, like Reuters or AP. You would have no hesitation in using any of their stories as a source in wikipedia. Indeed theres another article where all there is to support it is reprinted press releases, because unlike 'No Direction' who are a real band, its all hot air. --Gibnews 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The band has had a few Number One hits in the Gibraltar National Charts. No matter how small Gibraltar is, this is a National Chart nonetheless and therefore the band at least meets criteria No 2 of WP:MUSIC. Gibmetal 77talk 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would vote "Keep" if the band made Gilbraltar charts, but I have not seen proof of that yet other than self-claims by the band. gilbraltarlivemusic.com has a direct link to submit news and press releases. If someone can explain to me if/how the site's charts are reliable, I would change my vote. Cricket02 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong in that respect. The gibraltarlivemusic.com article was written by 'Alex Zapata' (as it states at the top). As far as I know Alex Zapata is not one of the band memebers and thence just a third party. This in turn demonstrates that it is not self-published material by the band. Chris Buttigiegtalk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Alex Zapata is a member of the website, although I am still unsure of the reliability of the source as far as official charts go for Gilbraltar. I will strike my delete and remain neutral. Cricket02 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Natioal Charts are published periodically in the Gibraltar Chronicle. Gibmetal 77talk 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest daily newspaper in print in the world - guess that merits an article in Wikipedia itself ... --Gibnews 20:18, 29 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Direction&oldid=1138166043"