Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band)

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Ballroom (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm curious why reference #8 says "failed verification." Is this because Spotify is not a reliable source? If it is a reliable source, this Spotify profile for Strictly Ballroom explains all the line-up changes and also provides the quote from Tony Kiewel, President of Sub Pop Record, the record label that Strictly Ballroom founder, Jimmy Tamborello's Postal Service album would sell platinum (over 1 million copies). Only one other album sold more copies for Sub Pop: Nirvana's "Bleach." Chalaco79 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for considering the Strictly Ballroom page. I was thinking that the ghettoblastermagazine.com Strictly Ballroom interview was significant coverage in a reliable source (reference #3). I also read that Discogs.com is a reliable source (reference #1). Chalaco79 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Also, Strictly Ballroom has write ups on last.fm, music.apple.com, rateyourmusic.com, open.spotify.com, allmusic.com, sputnikmusic.com, genius.com., among others. I really hope this is sufficient for the page to remain. Thank you! Chalaco79 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalaco79: I'm not !voting (see below) but it would be helpful for the closer if you list the 3-4 top sources showing notability. They should be independent and have wp:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly (see wp:NOTINHERITED) and indepth. No need for more than the best 4 here, this is just to pass notability. Just be very direct and literally bullet point list the sources with minor comments, make it as easy for others to !vote Keep based on the sources you list. I hope you don't mind the advice, If I'm not mistaken, you hadn't been in an AfD discussion before. Greetings from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found more significant coverage in reliable sources related to other projects that members of Strictly Ballroom (band) contributed to, including the Postal Service, Dntel, Beachwood Sparks, etc. Strictly Ballroom (band) is mentioned in these articles/interviews in reliable sources. I will add the references as soon as I get the chance, hopefully later today. Chalaco79 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added three more references providing significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not had the time to edit the details yet, however. These new references are still missing dates, titles, etc., which I still plan to add. I need to take a closer look at the html since I'm not an expert on how this is done. I will do this promptly. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the main argument why Strictly Ballroom was a significant band is because one of the two founding members, Jimmy Tamborello, went on to be one of the two founding members of the Postal Service (band), which sold over 1 million (certified platinum) copies of their album. Strictly Ballroom was Jimmy Tamborello's debut musical project, as one of two founders. The reliable sources regarding this history are provided in the references. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, am I on the correct page to discuss whether the Strictly Ballroom (band) page will be deleted or be allowed to stay as a page? I am not sure if I am. If there is any feedback available regarding my replies, that would be most appreciated. Thank you! Chalaco79 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above are sufficient to show your contention on why the page should not be deleted. The discussion will run for a week to elicit more feedback from other editors. In the meantime, I will say that notability is not inherent. We need sources showing why the band is notable, not information about other projects the lead singer may have been involved with. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe that reference #3, from a ghettoblastermagazine.com interview, stating that, "Strictly Ballroom...yielded some of the most significant players the indie rock landscape has known," is indicating the notability of the group. Please read to intro to this interview and let me know what you think. Thanks! Chalaco79 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reference #2 (AllMusic) states, "Signed to the Waxploitation label, the quintet issued the album Hide Here Forever in 1998, and became a college radio favorite, appearing on the CMJ charts," which also indicates the notability of the group. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is considered reliable for staff reviews; however, the link on the page is to the band's bio so wouldn't count for notability. The ghettoblastermagazine is an interview (not sure about reliability since interviews should not be considered for notability since the information provided is not independent). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wouldn't the introduction to the ghettoblastermagazine interview be considered independent to what was discussed during the actual interview? Thanks. Chalaco79 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is a reliable source, they it could. Still isn't enough to come close to showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-10 ✍️ create ← 2015-10 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a comment, I hope this article is not deleted, and I don't want to !vote delete, because I believe sources exist, but probably not online. But that is not a proper argument for keeping, just ILIKEIT mixed with SOURCESEXIST, which is why this is a comment and not a !vote.

If the article is kept, it needs cleaned up, right now it is more promotional than encyclopedic, sourcing is very poor in general and any unsourced member names need to be sourced or removed after this concludes, BLP information needs to be properly sourced even if the article itself is not a BLP.

Again this is just a comment, but I ask that this not be soft deleted, and drafting considered. // Timothy :: talk 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is really difficult with this one is that I assumed there would be plenty of sources, or at least mentions since the founder has a pretty lasting career. Unfortunately, even a search in Newspapers.com didn't turn up anything other than Strictly Ballroom (musical) and a racehorse from Australia. I am not sure that draftify would work since it is defunct so unlikely going to get more press. I do think a good WP:ATD would be to redirect as we could incorporate the information into the page for Dntel, specifically into the career section. There is shorter wording now but it could be worded as his "early career." Could also move the discography to the discography heading on his page with a subheading of "With Strictly Ballroom." The redirect would also preserve the page history in the event I am wrong and more coverage does come out in the future. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your considerations. I have a lot to learn about notability in the context of Wikipedia, apparently ;) Chalaco79 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit underground but digging up a few new sources and evaluating a couple of the previously noted ones, I think we have enough SIGCOV for WP:MUSICBIO#C1/GNG:
1. A review of Hide Here Forever in SputnikMusic (tagged emeritus review, considered reliable by WP:RSMUSIC) [1]
2. 1 short review of their self titled EP in HeartattaCk zine: [2]
3. 1 short review of Fire in AllMusic (staff) [3]
4. a brief paragraph in Drowned In Sound [4].
5. Looking at the other sources we already have, I think AllMusic is reliable enough for such a band biography for our purposes here, if BLP type details are used with caution (WP:RSMUSIC, WP:RSP), so there is some SIGCOV there. [5].
6. The Ghettoblaster article is written by Timothy Anderl so probably reasonably reliable regarding the front matter before the interview.

There's possibly claims at WP:MUSICBIO#6 as well, but I haven't dived too deep into other members notability.

The AllMusic link is NOT considered reliable for establishing notability. Everything else is exactly how you said....."short." I guess I don't see how this amounts to SIGCOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siro χ o 06:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources discovered by siroxo. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siro's forensics. A general remark: Relatively newer acts would tend to get more publicity in acceptable sources than older ones because of the increasing proliferation of sources, in general, as the years go by. It's just a fact of life, it seems. There are many acts that will never see the Wikipedia light of the day because they appeared, flourished, and went away before any online source existed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2023 (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.