Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fescal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Sock !votes have been discounted entirely.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fescal

[edit]
Fescal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in any way, looks like a vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not completely un-notable, as I did find this review, but from what I can tell that is the only source available, so WP:NMUSIC is some way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning toward keep - More research is warranted, and should preferably be delivered by individuals interested in the subject. The ABC references only indicate that the artist's songs were played on air, they don't qualify as "significant coverage" as defined by the general notability guideline. Of the other references, most of them look like blogs, which isn't entirely a nail in the coffin, as "Son of the Bronx" a TV blog is often used here. I've floated this article past WikiProject Music to see if they have any familiarity here. The ABC Radio sources indicate two songs were spun, but not that the songs were "in rotation", as would be one way to establish notability. UPDATE: per due diligence recommended by WP:BEFORE, I searched Google Books and Google news archive. I can't find any mention of the subject there. I'll do a little more looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related: We're trying to build an article on Fescal, but it's a pseudonym. The closest we get to the individual to establish any sort of notability, is the cryptic "David S". That's all fine and good, as we all love a touch of anonymity, but it's difficult to establish an individual's notability when we don't have all the facts. In contrast, Banksy is a pseudonym, but there is a stack of references as tall as Herman Munster to help support the individual's notability. A similar mystique surrounds the iconic Los Angeles icon Angelyne, though she too has a litany of press coverage far beyond what is cited in her article. Has the artist Fescal achieved any other fame via his real name, and might that help his notability? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned before that I found out his real name and searched for sources but couldn't find anything useful. (P.s. google news archive is being 'upgraded' and there are no archives at the moment, fortunately I have access to factiva). SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a primary source, which I think is fine for citing his real name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Reluctant Keep. Though we all have our concerns about paid editing, I think there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. The German speakers at the language reference desk indicate the Beat article represents a favorable review. They don't vouch for whether or not the review is part of an advertising supplement or not, but assuming good faith on all involved, I think we should also assume that the print publication is okay. That, coupled with a few of the other resources seem to indicate the subject is notable for "[having] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Obviously, if any or all of those reviews were paid for by the promoters, that would unravel all of this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
either it is or it isn't, if you have proof, please bring it into focus otherwise your comment is not helpful Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Shritwod I picked up on the same thing, and that's why I'm here. Assuming there is no fluff content in the article, once the notability is established, it should probably exist. I am concerned about these blog "reviews", because if a promotional company is so skeevy as to hire editors to fill Wikipedia up with bullshit content that violates our terms of service, I wouldn't put it past these same companies to create their own blogs, fill them up with paid reviews, and use these blog sites in attempts to establish notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conjecturable inconsequentiality formed on the basis of incomplete information because you have not presented to this forum any evidence. The conjectures here are many and varied, and are completely unfounded. It is feared that you offer only unsupported asseverations Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Say what now? "Conjecturable inconsequentiality"? This is a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted for failing to assert notability, not an investigation into paid editing. "Completely unfounded" is not an apt conclusion, as paid editing DOES occur, and there are squirrely editors who operate in teams to force POV and unnotable subjects into Wikipedia. The fact that you don't know where the evidence is, doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. But that's not even the issue in this discussion--we are discussing straight-up notability. Also, a heads-up, you may wish to remove your extraneous bolded Comments. In AfDs, we typically use these to state a position, either Delete or Keep, or Comment if we haven't arrived at a decision yet. Multiple bolded comments attracts undue attention to your comments, and that may be considered unfavorably by the closing admin as an attempt to inflate your position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not treat my comments with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. To suggest an attempt of inflation is nothing more than a way to elevate yourself by looking down on my editing skills. Simon 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article reads more like a "puff" article than anything else. There's no evidence that any of his tracks have made the charts, and I think you have to be pretty desperate to use "ABC Radio National has aired some of his work" as a claim of notability - numerous people have performed on the BBC, or had their music played there, but that doesn't make them notable, it just means the BBC needed to fill up some airtime. I'm confident that ABC Radio National doesn't have such high standards that simply being broadcast by them is a matter for the history books. RomanSpa (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RomanSpa I was responsible for "some of his work" as the previous version said, "In addition, ABC Radio National has shown support of his work." Obviously that phrasing makes it seem like he is backed/endorsed by ABC Radio National. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With all respect to the policies of Wikipedia I have found that this artists' references to be credible, verifiable and legitimate, and the profile to be notable. Further, the deprecatory attitude along with the assertions placed on this artist are unmeasured and ill-judged. From just a few hours of scouring the net and combing through sites I've found that this artists has been mentioned in Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3.
I will reiterate what I said early in Talk:Fescal that it seems the decision to select this article for deletion was done with haste and without background reading on the subject. If one takes the time to read up on the subject in question, ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) has been cited as a reference, not once, but twice and according the the website he's had 21 minutes 30 of air time (12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network), see here Abstract Shining & Where All Roads Lead. Also, the subject in question has featured in a few magazines (physical and digital). Also, it is much appreciated that Cyphoidbomb is seeking for translation for the German Beat Magazine publication. To mention the Igloo magazine citations, please see here for not one, but 5 publications. I personally would not consider these to be 'a passing mention', perhaps if there was only one article on the artist, but since there are five, this does make me think it's not 'a passing mention' but to provide objective evidence of notability and recognition of his contribution to the genre of ambient-drone music.
Further, I have found 3 more publications on the artist here FLUID RADIO. One article is not about the artists' release, but it makes reference to his style, which tells me that he's notable to some extent if other people refer to his music when reviewing other artists, click here .
Lastly, the notability of the artist falls into criteria 1 as stated here 'Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles' Moreover, in 2012, the artist's album was named by Igloomagazine as one of the Top 15 Ambient/Drone release. Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Hi SimoninIceland.. the article came to my attention while investigating a series of articles that appeared to have been created for profit. The consensus from other editors so far is that most of these articles should be deleted, although each one is considered on its own merits. This article does seem to be developing, so it could well be that notability is established (which would be fine by me). Shritwod (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*The first is a very short review - even shorter than the one I linked to, so not sufficient to meet in-depth requirements or multiple source requirements of WP:BIO.
  • Having some tracks played on a radio station doesn't make a musician notable. NMUSIC #12 would require the show to be about Fescal, not simply playing his tracks.
  • We need sources which demonstrate he is notable, not your interpretation of why he is - the reviews at igloomag and fluid-radio are better than what we have so far, but they're very specialist sources and demonstrate that notability is shaky at best. There are so many music sites and magazines out there, but we shouldn't have an article on every artist who's albums are reviewed. I still think that some coverage in a better known source (or evidence that the sources listed are top-notch for the genre) before we keep the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by Cyphoidbomb "there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND". Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Hi Shritwod & SmartSE, what about Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3 ? and I just found this futuresequence. I also noticed these two places have given coverage Hypnagogue, Loop magazine Chile LINK 1, LINK 2.
Hi Happydit Your response is appreciated, but can you please expound upon why you think the article should be kept? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should be aware of this ongoing SPI where Happydit is listed. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Smartse, as we know, consensus is formed through discussion, not through voting. This contribution from Happydit is little more than a vote. The user has been invited to expound on why they feel the article should be kept. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With respect to what has been said in this forum and in view of everything discussed there is enough content to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Granted that “There are so many music sites and magazines out there, but we shouldn't have an article on every artist who's albums are reviewed”, but I’ve hear the subject in question’s music on national Radio in Canada, I just wish I could find something to show the community, when I do I’ll be sure to post it here. And if I found out that this is a paid article I'll be sure to change my vote so I look forward to the development of this article." — Popnrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per RomanSpa. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, and a few short reviews (including that found on BEAT) don't constitute the kind of in-depth coverage required to make up for the lack of chart success and substantial airplay. Ruby Murray 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment The subject satisfies criteria 1 WP:NMUSIC "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've made it clear that you think the references cited satisfy criteria 1, but I still respectfully disagree. Ruby Murray 16:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree with the vilification by folks that has been generated here. I feel there is enough substance, in particular reviews and radio plays to warrant this article preservation as has been mentioned previously to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. What’s more, I also faintly remember hearing something on BBC 6 about his music in the early hours of the morning, which prompted me to buy his music from Stashed Goods. I tried searching the program playlist but that was about 2 years ago when the producer released an album called ‘Moods & Views’. Incidentally, I’ve been following the websites that have been cited for a number of years as an avid fan; Textura, Fluid Radio, Igloo Magazine, ATTN Magazine are a reliable source, by this I mean (their staff and freelance contributors write the articles, reviews, bios etc so people cannot simply copy and paste content supplied by artists and labels or studios). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiranAN123 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KiranAN123 Vilification? What vilification are you referring to? And I'm curious what else you know about the editorial policies of these sites. Can promoters submit "articles" and reviews to these sites as freelancers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb, vilification, I mean 'to write about in an abusively disparaging manner', i.e. the comment about ABC National Radio and the artist being desperate. I have read and seen nothing to support these words. How I understand the policies of these sites is that they are swamped by promos but they are very careful about what they published, and publications chosen by editors. I know this from experience because I produce music and have sent all the sites my music and they've not replied to me or even answered my e-mails. Even if promotors were to send press packages to these sites, it's not guaranteed to get even looked at, never mind a mention on their website. Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that all the sites would have the same standard and just accept all promo material thrown their way, it just doesn't make sense. By the way, I found this TOKAFI, which I would say is probably the most reliable source to date (I'm still searching) as this was "established in 2004 by music journalist and copywriter Tobias Fischer, tokafi now has a decade of experience to its credit". TOKAFI History Kiran A.N (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Kiranan123 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, KiranAN123, The ABC Radio links are insufficient to establish notability, as they neither demonstrate "rotation", nor do they mention the subject other than in passing--that is, they do not significantly cover the subject. In that regard, I understand the suggestion that using them is desperate. That's not vilification, that's the general notability guideline. I have switched my position to "Reluctant Keep", and I reserve the right to flip-flop again, because I'm still troubled by the references used, that there are only album reviews, that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry, that single-purpose accounts have sprung up from nowhere in defense of the article, and that some of the references used contain content that is so full of flowery language and pretentious gibberish like "syrupy organ points are viscously flowing through clouds of hiss" that I have to wonder if they are not either generated by algorithms, or if they are paid content generated by publicity companies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Cyphoidbomb. I have read what you have said very carefully and can you please show me your evidence that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry. I would very much like to see where you got this information from as it would change my vote and I feel unsettle by your utterances. Also, I have no idea what to make of your comments, but I'm of the opinion that the reason why people on here have defended the article is probably down to the subject actually being notable to some extent, and it would be strange if there was no defense. I'm under the impression that there are those who are willing to pettifog to be heard and do their utmost to traduce an article and/or a contributor to Wikipedia. What is more, I have read the WP:GNG and can not find anything about the word "desperate" or where it implies a suggestion of desperation. If you could please highlight this for me, it would be much appreciated Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
User RomanSpa wrote above: "...I think you have to be pretty desperate to use 'ABC Radio National has aired some of his work' as a claim of notability - numerous people have performed on the BBC, or had their music played there, but that doesn't make them notable, it just means the BBC needed to fill up some airtime." So of course you aren't going to find "desperate" in the general notability guideline--it's a user's opinion. But the ABC references still don't establish notability per WP:BAND, they only indicate that the artist got some air time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb, with reference to what you said above, "That's not vilification, that's the "general notability guideline" and now you say "it's his opinion", this is confusing. Be that as it may, how do we know it was a "claim of notability"? I didn't see anything about this being a claim of notability. Nonetheless, I await for evidence that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry. If no evidence is present, then I see your comments as nothing more than an absurd misrepresentation and contempt for the wishes of the majority. Simon 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Simon, this article has been nominated on the basis of potentially abusive editing as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#User:Flaviohmg_and_possible_COI. If you look at the editing pattern of the user involved and the evidence then there is very little doubt that this has occurred. Now, this does not immediately mean that the article should be deleted, but it does flag it up as suspicious and in need of review by some editors with expertise in the subject area. As for sockpuppetry.. well I note that the account SimoninIceland has only been used in connection with editing this article which is sometimes a sign of a sock or some other concealed interest. Also remember that if a subject is not notable now, it may become notable at a later date. However I must reassert that my opinion of this article is Delete given the apparent paucity of references. Shritwod (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, I don't understand much of what you are saying or asking, primarily because you are new, and I think you're processing what I and other editors are telling you in a manner that makes sense to you, but not to me. I have already (reluctantly) voted for the article to be kept and I have explained my rationale. So whatever "absurd"ities and misrepresentations you are perceiving, are entirely of your own fabrication. I've already explained why the ABC reference doesn't establish notability and I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how you're confused, so that I can un-confuse you. You've already stated your position. If you have a specific question, ask it. Further, we do not establish consensus by vote, we establish by discussion, and the closing admin can also take other factors into consideration, such as the people who comprise the consensus: are they sockpuppet accounts? are they meatpuppet accounts? Are they single-purpose accounts such as your own? So I don't think it is wise to accuse other users of having "contempt for the wishes of the majority" when that very majority could be called into question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 5 April 2014 (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/Fescal&oldid=1137847294"