Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoriyos

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. Proto::type 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoriyos

Was speedied twice with no notability claims; author has recreated again, and added a link to a review and a link to a radio show playlist. I don't think either satisfies WP:MUSIC; the [ BBC link is a trivial mention (a brief mention on a playlist); regarding the "review," I did a Google search for a snippet of the text from the review and found it on three different sites; none is a review site that I'd heard of before (none of the "reviews" have anything negative to say whatsoever). I'm pretty sure that the "reviews" on the site are just promos/press releases submitted by the subject or the subjects rep. The name of the article's creator is also the name of the subject's own record label; it all adds up to self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep What satisfies you Ohnoitsjamie? The review is real. and the plays on the BBC and Seans endorsement (if you listened to the show) seems sufficient to me. Even if it is deleted now it will be put up again by Polydor as they are distributing it, as they did with James Morrison 2 months before they released his debut album. i dont think your satisfaction is what needs to be satisfied here. So long as i stick to the criteria it should stay up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rarechords (talk • contribs) .

Comment WP:MUSIC-defined notability would satisfy me. Unlike MySpace, Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting an up-and-coming artist; musicians must already be notable to merit inclusion. You are correct that "my satisfaction" is not the sole critiera; that's why I listed it here for others to comment on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

Well the site with the review on it seems reputable to me, try reading other reviews of theirs and you'll see it's not just some silly site. and the bbc link is reputable. I do agree with you that this site is not a tool for promoting, it is not my intention to do that. And regarding the snippet being on three different sites, please post the links as i tried to do this and have only come up with the Female First review. comment was added by Rarechords

Comment The link to the Google search is in my nomination. I looked through some of the reviews on that site. I'm not convinced that their independent reviews; the read like promos. I did a Google search from a sentence from one of the DVD reviews and came up with numerous hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Female First, Teen First and Male First are obviously one and the same. They aren't three three different review sites with the same review. That's not a fair point. And furthermore, if you aren't UK based, i dont feel you can fairly assess this issue, as there have been gigs and prints in magazines here, he's not an out of the blue artist. Also there is a band called Oswald (UK Band) that has a page up, they dont have a record out or any links apart from their site. comment was added by Rarechords

• delete. Weak evidence of notability so far. Mukadderat 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The BBC link is not weak, and the other is weak in your own opinion. comment was added by Rarechords
• Strong Delete One album, which isn't out yet, and which is on a label of questionable noteworthiness, and radio play that began in October -- in other words, last week, maybe two weeks ago. A playlist is a trivial source, and I'm not convinced the review site linked qualifies as a reliable source. Finally, the article's author seems likely to have a conflict of interest here per WP:AUTO. Unless some evidence can be produced to show this's taken the UK by storm, it's just not noteworthy per WP:MUSIC yet. Shimeru 08:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No one has bothered to take this kind of action on the Oswald (UK Band) page, which has no links to their claims (and that's just one of the pages i've come across like that). It feels like I'm being picked on here. Regarding the "conflict of interest" please then amend the page to read more neutrally. I disagree that a "playlist is a trivial source". It's been on a few of Seans shows, he has a cult following down here and his taste is well respected, and the BBC dont just play any old record. And there need not be evidence produced to show this has taken the UK by storm as it is not one of the criteria listed in the WP:MUSIC. The label is not "of questionable noteworthiness", true that it is at its early stages, but it is being distributed by Polydor (Universal) and they have a reputation to uphold. Please email them to have this confirmed. Also, just found this, Gary Crowley of the BBC Radio London has also played Yoriyos link(see closing track) and BBC TOTP Top Of The Pops has his album listed for release link (see Nov 13th) comment was added by Rarechords
    • 1. A playlist is trivial; it says nothing about the artist or the music, other than that it has been played. (And that the "debut album" is an EP, which makes it less noteworthy, if anything.)

2. Sean Rowley is itself unsourced, but he does seem to have a regular show, which could make this one noteworthy and reliable media source, if your song's on rotation, or if Mr. Rowley has commented on it, its artist, or its album. The show is called "Guilty Pleasures," and apparently "celebrates music that is slightly shameful to love," so I'm not sure this is a ringing endorsement, but still, a source.

3. It's probably not a good idea to use another article as precedent. Especially an article you think doesn't meet the standards. Thank you for pointing it out, though; I'll do some research and possibly nominate that article later tonight.

4. You're not being picked on. Wikipedia deletes a lot of articles about non-noteworthy bands. However, nobody's disputing that the album is listed for release; this does not make the artist noteworthy. Nobody's disputing that it's been played on the radio at least once; this does not make the artist noteworthy. This is a brand-new artist with no albums out (yet); this tends to make the artist non-noteworthy. Not necessarily -- if his single has swept the nation and he's debuted high on the charts, he would warrant an article. But so far I've seen no indication that this individual belongs in an encyclopedia. He has no established career, and, based on the article's claims, there's nothing unusual or notable about his music. If there is something that makes this young artist especially noteworthy, then it should be in his article, and it should be sourced. If not, he should wait until his career's more firmly established, such that someone else, not directly associated with him or his label, begins an article about him. Shimeru 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Comment It is an album release not a promo [1] but fair points made. so long as you checked all the links i gave, and if they still dont meet to your satisfaction, then i'm sorry for putting this page up again and wasting everyones time. i'll leave it for someone else to do when/if the artist does meet wikis criteria. peace. comment was added by Rarechords
• Comment I'm not in the UK, so I won't vote - but with respect to recording artists, perhaps a determining factor ought to be whether or not their recordings have hit the "charts". It is so easy to have recordings done now, the mere existence of a CD, even some radio play, is not sufficiently noteworthy, IMO. (My tuppence for the day) PKT 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is another review that looks less like a press release.

[2] comment was added by Rarechords

• • • Comment Glasswerk appears to be a site for artists to promote themselves. The site invites anyone to submit a recording for review; reviews on the site are written by unpaid volunteers. Given that and the site's lack of notability, it doesn't fulfill the multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media requirement of WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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.