- 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. The editors favoing keep did not really produce any policy-based arguments for retaining this. Simple play on the BBC, while significant, does not establish notability, and no useful sources were added to the article nor listed here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of You (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)
Article doesn't comply to Notability:Music guidance, it contains statement "was selected to participate in the world's first e-novel with music" which is blatant advertisement by band members--SubRE (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the song is notable enough... just some googling and you will find out how the ebook has 800k downloads. You should do some reading before you start deletinf things franticly as if it's your new toy and you should start replying to wikipedians' messages on your talk page. 404's are always a problem this was released 3 years ago this will need more experienced editors with indie rock background in music to be decided, what you are doing is vandalism and it shouldn't be overlooked MusicPatrol (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It actually covers more points on the notability area, it had spins on BBC so it's an indisputable keepMusicPatrol (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC Claim backs it beautifully... The thing is 'Point of You' wasn't on the eBook, it was 'Remnants (of a Former Worry)' instead, apologies, I will fix the mistake, I guess if I was connected to the band like the sock puppeteer accuses me for I would have changed it years ago. It saddens me not seeing moderators doing something about such a behaviour Asouko (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment By the way before you do anything you should at least read the guidelines, you don't just randomly add tags ignoring all the previous work done by editors on the article, and don't notify anyone, also you'd expect to be proficient to edit Wikipedia not writing 'doesn't exists' etc, knowing a bit more about music also would be desirable. There's definitely some personal spite in the whole thing and I have to agree it's sheer vandalism Asouko (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Both users above is authors of article and active promoters of band, possibly members. So I suggest simply to ignore their "votes". The only "argument" they mentioned is "airing on BBC 6 radio" once. Clearly, no one "noted" it and it wasn't played again. So, how do you think, if song once was put on a radio, is it worth separate Wikipedia article?--SubRE (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will refer you to my other comment, I can't be babysitting you seeing where you are frantically editing... 'excellent gas-lighting technique there...You'll probably have to google this meaning... this is just outrageous! I am out! please experienced editors, you should look into this!' Asouko (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, editors should look into this closer.--SubRE (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment You are absolutely ignorant... we need indie rock experts here not your personal views... the BBC thing covers it... go read what rotation is... It's not down to your personal opinion on what's notable... Mid range acts have encyclopedic interest... their fans pack clubs and their fans buy records... You don't know anything about music... Google rolling stones sticky fingers, arguably the biggest band and their most known record and let me know how many non primary mentions you will find let alone, king crimson, etc. or a big mid range band... Post punk revival is a niche genre, but let it to the experts to decide you can't just do things because of spite... I can start pasting links I found but unless experts on the matter comment I am done arguing with you, That's all from me as wellMusicPatrol (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't staffed by "experts" in any music genre – even if it were, they would still have to follow the guidelines under WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG to determine whether an article about an album or a song passes the notability criteria, so yes, you are correct, it's not personal opinion on what's notable, it's complying with Wikipedia guidelines. At the moment there is no evidence that any of the AfD'd articles about Phase pass those criteria. The song "Point of You" was not on "rotation" at BBC 6 Music, it was included on a downloadable mix tape and there is no evidence that Tom Robinson played it more than once on his show. Yes, please do start pasting links from reliable sources (no blogs, or the fact that you can buy the records on iTunes or Amazon or Spotify) that prove the articles' notability, that's exactly what would help to keep them. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant admins that have experience in editing music articles or have a good background in the music status quo or listening to such music at least, and they are so many out there... they can tell a notable band, etc when they see it... Like knowing when a band is headlining in such and such venue they are notable or when that producer mentions them they are etc. I will take the extra mile and do some pasting, but now that the ' millennial style comment war' ceased I am not that bothered to be honest, I am sure the author and one of the main editors of the article, will paste some links too. MusicPatrol (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But a band's notability for a Wikipedia article isn't defined by an editor being able to "tell a notable band" or "knowing when a band is headlining"... that's an editor's personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines for notability as stated in WP:NALBUM or WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No you got me wrong again.. It helps when someone knows that NME is not a local free press for instance, or Quietus some aspiring blog and such! MusicPatrol (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so here you can listen Nick Roberts talking about how he played the song's remix, and most likely he played the original song in the past but BBC will let you know only about the last time it's played, and it only makes sense as it's their local show Phase Point of you remix on BBC if some one from London listened and played it while he normally wouldn't... here you will listen to Tom Robinson himself explaining how it works Tom Robinson's lecture on music industry, while normal radio plays are payed for by the artist's or their representatives. Probably the band should fire their publicist, but the references are there. Probably this could be merged in the album's page, I am not sure... MusicPatrol (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Asouko (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly consider redirecting to the album's page where the information should be merged to 86.183.161.31 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You should give a reason for your "keep" assessment. Richard3120 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it does meet the notability criteria, like it's mentioned above, possibly merge 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet the notability criteria for WP:NSONG? "Multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources" – nope. The BBC 6 Music page is a mirror of the Wikipedia page for the band so it's not a valid source. The Fresh on the Net and BBC North East references simply list the song as part of a track listing. The other two references are not RS. It hasn't charted, it hasn't won any awards, and it hasn't been covered by notable artists. So I don't see anywhere that it passes the notability criteria. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not about the bio sourced from wikipedia, it's a bout the songs last played on BBC!!
- Also on the North East link you can hear the show and the producer talking about the song and it included blah blah... Please look intp the links through if you want to comment on them, else I don't see the point of discussing anything, it's easier to destroy than build, anything... Notability is here, I've read the criteria over and over again, and I don't understand why don't you see it... Asouko (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment deleting should be the last resort... The article was rated as start class, it's not a stub! I pledge to edit and improve it but obviously I will need time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody mentioned disruptive editing and tag bombing by the nominator that arrived from nowhere to add tags here and there! We should be trying to fix the problems rather than just adding tags before we do everything else, such behaviour isn't helpful to the Wikipedia community! Asouko (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already voted once above, you shouldn't vote "keep" again. And you keep saying "there is material for it in the internet and in magazines", but there isn't any proof of that. Inclusion on a mixtape is not notable. Being played on a BBC radio station is not notable, otherwise every song ever played on the BBC would be notable - and as I've already pointed out, that link to the BBC North East programme is no longer available, so nobody can now access it to confirm that song was played. So other sources are required to prove notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't know if I should edit the page above the 'relisted convesrsation message' to add a strikethrough but I am changing the vote to merge, although I think it passes the music notability criteria, some equally and more important singles don't have their own pages, and the merge will only improve the album's page although it is as well currently contested MusicPatrol (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunately, the commonality of the term makes it difficult to research, but after looking through dozens of hits, can't find a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent source. The current sourcing consists of blogs, mere listings, and a wiki mirror. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Onel5969 TT me 19:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there appears to be a lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2017 (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.