Talk:Baby Shakes

CSD Tagging

I originally tagged the article as G3 based upon what I saw (Douchemaster Records, Shit Sandwich Records), then upon further review decided that db-band was a better fit. However when I went back to the article to correct the tag it had already been changed to the correct one, even though the history showed myself as the last edit. ArcAngel (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion ?

The band has official publications, and a certain high profile through their publications and their world wide concerts. IMHO all this facts legitimate that article. --78.48.5.86 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if reliable sources that significantly cover the band in independent coverage are not included in the article. A passing mention in Rolling Stone magazine is not enough to satisfy notability. ArcAngel (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band has official publications, and a certain high profile through their publications and their world wide concerts. IMHO all this facts legitimate that article. Or in other words: it is expectable, that people look for condensed informations here in wikipedia. It is not my aim to push the band, but to concentrate scattered informations - the main idea of an encyclopdia. --Twsttwtw (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a mention in RS magazine, it is the fact, that we can expect enough people (not only some "family members") making recherche for informations. --Twsttwtw (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but the last external link you provided DOES say it is a mention. "Official publications" do not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Social networking sites such as Myspace and Twitter are counted as unreliable sources. Were the concerts covered by any major news sources? If not, that again fails the notability test. It is up to you to provide independant third-party sourcing for this article, otherwise it won't stand a chance of surviving. ArcAngel (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention indeed, but that is not the point. We can make as much as rules we want, but sometimes, especially with such little bands, we can not technically measure and control a high profile. here we need to reflect: we can expect a lot of people who look right here for informations, that must be enough. sometimes we have to be flexible, not slavishly following rules. if people learn, that they can expect to find informations only for super-well-known phenomenas, they will not take WP for serious. --78.48.5.86 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if there's a high public profile - what matters is the high MEDIA profile. If the media is unaware of this band (hence, no significant coverage), the band cannot be included here. This is one rule that cannot be bent here, not even a little. ArcAngel (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think, that WP shall not use it´s possibilities. Rules are there to be interpreted. As i said: as long as we can expect numerous people looking for informations, and as long as the informations are serious and condensed, the article is legitimated. A "high media profile" cannot be enough as a criteria. If you would follow this rule, you´d have to delete a lot of other articles, not only about music groups. WP cannot be a place only to document high media profile. --78.48.5.86 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see assertion of WP:BAND, as the article states the group performed on a national tour of the US and Europe, so I declined the speedy deletion request. It looks like a good WP:AFD or WP:PROD candidate if it doesn't get improved immediately. Speedy deletions need to be VERY obvious. Royal broil 13:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my (the up-to-now-main-author) mother language is not english, i invite everyboby to bring the english of the article to a perfect position. @ Royalbroil: what else has to be improved in your opinion? --78.48.5.86 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is not enough reliable sources provided. Social networking sites are not considered reliable. Coverage in major music publications and sites (Billboard, Allmusic, etc.) is what is needed to be provided in the article. ArcAngel (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With such farcically high measures you´d have to delete a lot of articles, a lot of good and demanded articles. --78.48.5.86 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: 78.48.5.86 equals Twsttwtw, so this would be only one vote. --78.48.5.86 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not so much "farcically high" as it is policy. Articles HAVE TO meet minimum requirements for inclusion, the subject matter is irrelevant. If there weren't policies in place to police articles, this place would be a huge mess of articles with no standardization among them. ArcAngel (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization is different from inclusion/exclusion-policies. This article fulfills a minimum of standardization, i guess. We want to document knowledge, why shall this documentation be reduced to commercially successful bands? If this is really the intention of the so called relevance criterias, then there is sth wrong with them. I guess that the meaning if these criterias is not to exclude articles, but to keep them from being deleted in case they have not enough standardization, f.e. an article about a band with high coverage in major music publications shall not be deleted but improved. so, if the meaning of these criterias is to standardize or to keep WP from "a huge mess of articles with no standardization" they use the wrong instruments. standardization goes by a minimum of unitary structure, not by the kind of content. i did my best to provide a structure which goes along with the other articles about music groups and to give as much as possible basic and long term informations. --92.228.141.117 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]