Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachfuzz

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 Sarah 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Peachfuzz

Peachfuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:MUSIC. could not find specific coverage for this Australian band. there's organisations and sporting teams called peachfuzz in chicago and UK but not the same as this one. [1] LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Not a notable band. Fails all guidelines and even has a HUGE COI issue appearing on this one. (Schmozzle is used as the website, and as the user who made the article...) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is the user Schmozzle, who created the Peachfuzz entry. The reason you can't find anything on the web for the band is that it basically predates the era when the web came into popular use for musicians. I (Stefan Schutt) was in the band Peachfuzz, which was popular in Melbourne and nationally between 1992 and 1995, as the article states. I have dozens of reviews, articles and the like about the band, but these have not been translated onto the web. It is listed in the Australia Who's Who of Music (only available in hard copy) and since then other bands have taken on the name. The problem with using Internet references as the logic for removing the page is that this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the reason I created the entry was that the band's career, which was important to the local music scene, had not been documented sufficiently. There is a real danger of Wikipedia adopting a circular logic that will mean that anything created prior to the internet era that is still not in online circulation will be deleted from our collective history. This is especially the case for localised but significant cultural activities and organisations like our band. I am happy to scan and send any evidence of the band's career - but please don't assume that just because it's not seen online, it didn't exist or wasn't important. Thanks. Schmozzle (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmozzle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Schmozzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

non web references are permitted but you must cite them properly. most Australian newspapers are covered in online archives for past 30 years, so it is highly unusual for a notable band not to get significant online coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you call 'notable' and which papers you mean. In Melbourne, the only dedicated music coverage in the two newspapers is the EG in The Age - a foldout section on a Friday that had a particular slant on what it covered. This also ignores the street papers and magazines that no longer exist (eg the Form Guide). The local Fitzroy indie scene of the early 90s, of which we were part, was important in the cultural history of the city and the country's music scene, but was not always covered by the daily papers at the time. Also, online archives are selective and don't always cover specialist areas. In my case, I have hard copies of the articles and cite them.

Another point on the perceived conflict of interest: usually with smaller bands (as well as other cultural activities) that were around some time ago, the 'keepers' of the info on them is with the people who were involved with them. I don't think that's a COI unless it affects the tone or objectivity of the article written. Schmozzle (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle

Further to the above comments: as well as the posting of references and other details on the Peachfuzz page, I have been looking at Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

It says that a musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of a group of criteria. I believe that Peachfuzz meets the following criteria:

  1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
               o Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
               o Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
               o Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Note: of the references I have added to the article, one is from a university paper (Lot's Wife) but the others are from the street press, one from a regional paper (Forte), one from a national music magazine (the now-defunct Juice), and the listing in the Who's Who of Australian Rock.

  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

We had one LP released by Mushroom Record on their Temptation development label, plus two others with national pressing and distribution deals: MDS (also a Mushroom company) and Shock.

  6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Peachfuzz drummer Cameron Potts is a notable Melbourne musician, who plays or played in well-known local bands NinetyNine, Baseball, Sandro and Cuba is Japan. He has his own dedicated Wikipedia page.

  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Peachfuzz was recognised as a leading exponent of the Fitzroy Scene of the early to mid 1990s, which also spawned recognised bands such as the Mavis's and the Lucksmiths

 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. 

Peachfuzz had songs included in two national TV shows: Police Rescue and Simon Townsend's Wonder World

 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

A number of Peachfuzz's songs (Hurt You, Beautiful Fire and Who Loves You) were on high rotation on national youth radio station JJJ.

 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Peachfuzz undertook an extended live to air on national radio station JJJ in 1994

121.219.254.65 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (sorry, forgot to log in before editing)

• Comment Regardless, you need to provide sources about the JJJ thing. Actually, you need to provide sources over all of those claims. Also, it seems to me that Schmozzle may have a COI thing going on with this band. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Undead Warrior: - could you please state the basis in the Wikipedia guidelines for your claim of a COI

- I have tried to find the references for the JJJ playlist but have not been able to find records. Again, the issue is whether or not records were kept and if they're available. I understand the onus is on proof but what if it does not exist in electronic form, except in the experiences of those who took part? In some cases, perhaps the fact that the claim is on Wikipedia means that, like in scientific papers when claims are made, it is in the public domain and open to challenge by anybody. I have tapes of the live to airs, the interviews, the APRA royalty statements for airplay etc, but how to turn that into sources in an online article?

What follows is a more detailed examination of this discussion to date, in the interests of furthering Wikipedia and how it works.

- further to my initial point about history in the age of the Internet: there's an arbitrary aspect to whether or not certain content appears on the internet, particularly when that content predates the internet. This is only partly related to the validity of the content. The web is a self-archiving system, and if our band had been around now, a lot of the discussion on it that appeared in fanzines and other offline forums would now be on the web. And even then there is variation. For instance, my partner played in a band called Snog in the 1990s. There is a lot more information on the web about Snog, partly because a) they lasted longer into the web age, whereas our band broke up when the web really got going, and b) Snog were an electronic industrial band, and the kinds of people who followed them were by default more into using technology than the people who were into indie rock.

- further to the last point: I wonder whether the kinds of people who have the time and energy to become Wikipedia volunteers are generally 'internet era' people, ie younger than people like me who weren't brought up with the internet. For those people, the internet has always been there, and so for them the default check as to whether something exists or is 'notable' is Google (or similar). There is a real danger here of missing a lot of localised pre-internet things that happened, that matter, but that have not left much of a trace on the web.

- Wikipedia is a reference resource - in that context, the online popularity of particular content is a flawed measure of its worth. You don't include or exclude content from an encyclopedia or dictionary based on how many people talk about it. Rather it's whether the content adds to the comprehensive coverage of a particular knowledge area.

- on the topic of Conflicts of Interest: the case for a COI is harder to make when the band has broken up, because there's no self-interest in promoting it beyond a certain desire to maintain legacy (as in my case). And as stated previously, those interested in maintaining legacy are usually those who have been involved in the activity - here I think of my local historical society, based on the site of an old prison, whose members are mainly warders etc of the prison

- Remember that Wikipedia article creators are learning as they go, and sometimes they don't know that they're doing something wrong. I keep learning constantly on things like the attribution of license to images, layout of articles etc. Wikipedia rules are complex and are sometimes discovered through trial and error. Finding the right way to do things on Wikipedia is sometimes not easy. Be patient with us if we are contributors with goodwill. For instance, I have only just discovered that there's a talk area for users, and so have only just seen a very useful discussion on an article for a current band of mine that I created and that was deleted in January.

- I have to say that I am disturbed about Undead Warrior's call for speedy deletion of the Peachfuzz article, but heartened by the fact that Wikipedia's internal checks resulted in the CSD being overruled. My understanding is that CSDs were designed to be used for content that is gratuitous, offensive, pointless or misleading. The Peachfuzz article was none of the above, and the CSD was based only on a questioning of the band's notability and the fact that more references were needed. A CSD could be used to shut down the kind of debate and discussion that is now taking place here, and that helps to inform the development of Wikipedia.

Thank you for reading.

Schmozzle (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The overly detailed defence is unnecessary, and unlikely to convince any editors, especially coming from a former member of the band in question. In fact, it screams non-notable. But for what it's worth, the Who's Who source and a few of the magazine citations seem like they might be valid demonstrations of notability (although maybe not - the book explicitly states that it covers even "obscure" bands). Could you provide some context, perhaps a quote from Who's Who? And for the magazines, we need a bit more information than just name and year - please add issue numbers (unless of course it's an annual).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that feedback.

Sorry my reply was lengthy - but it was only partly about defending the article. In the end you guys will decide what is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of what I say. The other stuff I raised is more about the larger issues this example raises about what you see as valid as history or evidence: ie is it only considered to have existed if it's on the web? Wikipedia is now considered an authoritative and valued resource, has a huge reach, and as such I think this issue an important one to raise, because keepers of Wikipedia like yourselves will have a big say in deciding what part of our past is remembered and what is forgotten. (Here I have to out myself as a university researcher in history and the internet).

As regards the article, I will add magazine page and issue numbers (I had not put them in because the Wikipedia referencing guidelines said not to!) and will find the edition and quote from the Who's Who. Should I put the quote in the body of the article or here?

In deciding notability, the guidelines say that a band is considered notable if it meets one of the criteria (commented on above). So if it is deleted, will it be on the basis that it doesn't meet all of these? Or is it a more subjective decision? Similarly, is there a guideline that says that being a member of a band, then creating an article about it, constitutes a COI? I haven't seen it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, just to get some clarity about your terms of reference.Schmozzle (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle

No, as mentioned above, offline references are fine, but they must be specifically identified, and much more importantly, reliable. The vast majority of deletions occur because the article could not be verified by multiple, reliable secondary sources. This page does cite sources, but are they reliable, and if they are do they demonstrate the notability of the band? That is, is their coverage by that source non-trivial? The magazine Beat, for example, seems to be a local Melbourne gig guide. This doesn't really count as a reliable source - it's basically promotional material. If their performances were covered by a newspaper that might give you a better argument.

If you want to give a quote from the source to help decide if it establishes notability, post it here or at the article discussion page, not the article mainspace.

Yes, writing about a band you were a member of constitutes COI, but it is not necessarily an issue as long as the article is written neutrally and in an encyclopaedic style.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (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.