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. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned, independent musician. At first glance, the article seems reasonably well-sourced, but upon deeper investigation it appears that most of these sources are made up of blogs, primary sources or just plain old non-reliable websites. While I applaud his DIY approach and congratulate him on the remarkable achievement of 2 million scrobbles at last.fm, the only sources that I could find that looked remotely reliable and independent were this and this, and I'm afraid that doesn't add up to meeting the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide. That said, he clearly has a fanbase, so I hope to be proved wrong here. — sparklism hey! 09:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five of his albums are now on Amazon. There is a review from Ultimate-guitar of Let Yourself Be Huge. I've added multiple reviews of Beacons. Also in the External Links section I put his amazon and discogs web page. — Hanznolo talk 09:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be a case of WP:MYSPACEBAND. Also, it should be noted that user Hanznolo has been creating pages for all of the albums and EP's. If this page is deleted, those should be tagged for speedy delete. Benboy00 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. No "myspace band" gets the kind of recognition that Cloudkicker gets. — Hanznolo talk 09:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purely out of interest, keeping in mind that this is not a strict rule, which of these do you think he satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles . If it is multiple ones, try to make each point a brief summary. Composers guidelines may be more appropriate. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way in which Cloudkicker operates (one man, DIY, non touring, giving away music for free artist) automatically takes him out of the running for 2-6 and 8-12 of that particular category. I would consider him for 1 and 7. Though admittedly not a precise form of measurement, there are over 71,000 results on google for the search "Cloudkicker Ben Sharp" (not including articles that mention Cloudkicker but not his birth name Ben Sharp), which should satisfy "online versions of print media". For number 7, though hard to verify, he is considered a leader of the "djent" movement and instrumental DIY metal movement which includes artists such as Animals As Leaders, Scale The Summit, Chimp Spanner, and Keith Morrow, among others. I would think that a website like Wikipedia would be able to acknowledge a musical act with a substantial fanbase and interest that doesn't have gold records, massive record sales, or national tours. Seems like an outdated form of measuring considering what technology has done to the record industry. Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I will examine to the rest later, but one bit did jump out: I dont see him on the Djent page. Do you have any reliable sources for the statement that he is considered a leader of the movement? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user survey from what looks to be a non-reliable source does not seem like enough proof to call someone a leader of a movement. Also, I notice that there are 6 bands who have a higher number than him, in some cases much higher, and quite a lot have a similar number. This again seems like a bad reason to call someone a leader, and seems like weasel words. Benboy00 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the map from the website because I wask asked to give credence to Cloudkicker being a leader of a genre (seeing as that's 1 of 2 criteria that Cloudkicker falls into for being verifiable). Also, although being behind 6 other bands makes him 7th, that's 7th out of 1,268 bands. And could you clarify "quite a lot have a similar number"? Cloudkicker is the only band on that map in the 900's, with most bands who even made the map being in the 100's and few being over 400.Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct about the second part, the map is somewhat confusing, and its easy to count bands twice. There are only a few bands in the 800's. My point is, where do you stop? What about the 8th band? Or the 9th? Are they leaders too? The very phrase "leader of a genre" is somewhat weasely. I would consider the top 3 or 4 to be "leaders", and even then this is not valid as this is still not a reliable source. A survey of 4000 people, while suitable for making a nice picture, is not suitable as a source, unless all you are saying is that he is 7th on this particular website. From what I can tell, it wasnt even an active survey, merely an information map of users "favourites". What reliable sources have mentioned him, non trivially? The majority of sources seem to be blog-type websites. Benboy00 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What about the 8th band? Or the 9th? Are they leaders too?" Possibly, I suppose. The top ten at least are in the top percentile of over 1,000 bands. As you stated, it's not entirely reliable, but I would say that on the main website for that particular genre it would be the most reliable you're going to get. When you have 4,0000 people giving their favorites I would say it's as accurate as your going to get. Just a glance at the map and you get an idea, even if it's just based on the size of a circle, how popular he is in that genre. I have at least provided some evidence that he could be considered at least a, if not the definitive, leader in the genre of djent. That map is really the only thing to go off of. This all may be irrelevant anyway because the reason this article was brought into question in the first place was due to not having enough sources that wikipedia finds credible. I have since found and mentioned articles from Rolling Stone, Alternative Press, and NME. Also a review by a staff member from Sputnik Music. These all fit the guidelines of WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
The fact that thats is the only thing to go off is sort of my point. Those sources are being discussed below. Benboy00 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Cloudkicker is run the way it is, is why online articles is the only thing to go off of. He doesn't qualify for gold records and he doesn't tour. Yet there are massive amounts of articles online, some of which qualify for wikipedias standards. Below you addressed one, gave your opinion on two, and ignored the last reference. Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
The reason I didnt address the last one is because you didnt give a link for it, nor could I find it in the references of the cloudkicker page. Could you provide a link please? Also, you seem to keep saying things like "it's not surprising that this is the only source" and "its not surprising that he gets limited exposure" etc. This does not seem to be an argument in your favour. It's not surprising that my dog doesn't get a mention in the New York Times every week. If its not surprising that he doesn't get exposure, why is it surprising that he shouldn't get a wikipedia page? Benboy00 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the Sputnik Music review that meets WP:ALBUM/SOURCEhttp://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/48112/Cloudkicker-Loop/ I only said it doesn't surprise me because of your quip about how interesting it is to you that he only has a paragraph on alternative press. I was providing some context as to why it's not all that surprising. And yes, that's a perfect analogy. If your dog isn't in a giant publication like the New York Times every week, why should an independent musician with an ever growing online presence, with reviews that meet wikipedia guidelines, have a pageonWikipedia. Hanznolo (talk) , 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. It seems like quite a harsh review. Anyway, this certainly lends support to the case for the existence of the Loop album article, but I am not so sure that it does the same for this article, as it is specifically about the album, not the artist, and does not seem to fulfill any of the 12 criteria. My point with the dog analogy is that when you say "its not surprising that this person has no coverage", it detracts from your argument. If this person is truly "notable", by the wikipedia definition of notable, then he should have X. If he does not have X, then he is not "notable". Saying "its not surprising that he doesnt have X" is basically the same as saying "its not surprising that he's not 'notable'". If this is the case, then he shouldn't have a wiki article. Your definition of notable may be different from wiki's, and there are always exceptions, but I'm trying to explain why that approach is the wrong one. He may very well be "notable" (thats the point of this AfD) but he has to be wiki-"notable" (maybe that can be a new word). Benboy00 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I provide a link that substantiates something, it doesn't need your opinion. Case and point, I provide a legitimate review, and you comment on how it is "harsh". What does that have to do with anything other than you trying to be negative? I'm sure I can dig up a negative review of a band that is "wiki- notable" like U2 or Coldplay. The fact is that I found a review that meets the WP:ALBUM/SOURCE for an album. You've done this a few times in the discussion. Stop throwing out little biased opinions that aren't pertinent, in order to try and taint the view of the discussion. As a review being harsh does not take away from the fact that a staff member from Sputnik Music gave a review of an album. I will continue looking for articles on Cloudkicker, or Ben Sharp himself, that meet the guidelines.Hanznolo (talk) , 10 October 2013 (UTC)
... I apologise for commenting on the review. I was just surprised, possibly because I have not read many album reviews, and have not seen that type of negativity before. When i commented on the negativity, that was nothing to do with the rest of my post. I did not use it as a justification in any way, and if it seemed like I did, then I apologise. However, what you say is utter rubbish. Just because you say a source substantiates something, does not mean it does. This is known as an "opinion", and the thing about opinions is that everyone has one. I agree that there are some things where having a different opinion would be laughable, like having the opinion that the world is flat. This is clearly not one of those times. The fact that this AfD is not a snowball keep is proof of that. If you feel that my opinion is invalid, please argue against it using logic, not some sort of angry spew. Please do not say things like "little biased opinions". This demonstrates emotional involvement, which is not what is needed in this AfD. It is also quite a serious accusation to call another editor "biased". Please do not do so lightly. I do my best to be unbiased. I voted in this AfD because I genuinley believe that this band is not suitable for wikipedia (yet). You, as the creator, clearly have a different opinion, which is totally ok. I myself may change my opinion based on the arguments presented here. Calling someones opinion "biased" helps no-one, especially as the very same accusation could be levelled at you, as the creator of this article. Please keep the discussion on topic, and hopefully this AfD will be resolved peacefully. Benboy00 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take back the word biased. What I meant was stop saying irrelevant comments about verifiable articles that I present. I meant that your view of the review being "harsh" could be seen as an opinion. Especially considering the overall score was "average", and you admitted to not being well versed on album reviews. Look up any popular musicians album reviews and you will see "that type of negativity" that you mentioned. Also, I am not the creator of the article. I have simply been updating the album info of the page. Hanznolo (talk) , 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete, this article has been on my watchlist for a while now and I've been tempted to AFD it for just as long. Admittedly, I was quietly hoping the release of Subsume would garner some media attention and buzz, but there really wasn't anything that would satisfy WP:BAND. Sad to see it go, but policy is policy. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search of "cloudkicker subsume" yeilds a fairly decent amount of results. Especially considering the type of musical act that Cloudkicker is.Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see that many pages come up in a Gsearch. The problem is, none of them qualify as what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. The Wikipedia music collaboration also has it's own list of pre-approved reliable sources here: WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. If you'll notice, Amazon is deemed an unreliable source -- an argument you have been providing here to support keeping this article. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that rolling stone india is not on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, and the coverage in altpress seems trivial. The NME link appears to be a music video for one of his songs, but not really any coverage? Its somewhat odd, and the video wont load for me, so im not sure exactly what that link is. Benboy00 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's run by Rolling Stone, still you may be right. The Alternative Press article easily qualifies. It's a news article about the release of an album. The NME may be short but it's in a section of their website and made by a contributor. The video is a link to the song mentioned, not sure why it doesn't work for you. And you didn't address the Sputnik Music review made by a staff member. That reference fits the description in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE exactly. Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that the altpress source qualifies as what WP:BAND defines as trivial -- it's also interesting that in Cloudkicker's half decade of existence, this glorified paragraph is the sole article from altpress on the band.[1] The NME source isn't really a source at all, NME just mirrors YouTube videos that are related to music. The Indian Rolling Stone article is actually the first piece of compelling evidence I've seen to demonstrate wiki notability. The problem now is that criteria #1 of WP:BAND would like to see "multiple" articles such as this. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising at all that a one man instrumental project gets limited coverage on major websites that are run off of advertisement. Still, there is some. And the multiple articles include the Alternative Press article, NME article, and Sputnik Music review. The Alternative Press article is not trivial because the headline is not "Fade Tracklisting", it's an actual article (albeit a short one).Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
If a subject does not receive significant coverage, then that subject is not deserving of an article on Wikipedia per the guidelines and policies provided. The AltPress "article" isn't even about Ben Sharpe, it's about Fade, so if anything it really only helps establish notability for that album, not the artist. The same goes for the Sputnik review. If you could find maybe two more indepth articles like the Indian Rolling Stone one, then you'd have a far more compelling case here. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Ben Sharp's birthday and gives a link to Ben Sharp's website. Yet it isn't even about Ben Sharp?Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion mentions AltPress's article and even gives a link to AltPress's website. Yet it isn't even about AltPress? I fail to understand your point. I think you're confusing the focus of an article with a passing mention of someone's name. This discussion is about the notability of Cloudkicker, but many other things are mentioned in it as well, akin to the way the article about Fade mentions minor details about Sharp, but easily qualifies as trivial and/or passing. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your argument/analogy to work, the title of this article would have to include Alternative Press, which it does not. Where as the Alternative Press article has Cloudkicker in the title. My point was you said the article didn't have to do with Ben Sharp when it gave personel information on him. Either way, I'll continue to look for additional articles that meet the guidelines. Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think most people would agree that the altpress article is trivial. I would imagine that any single paragraph article, no matter in what source or with what title, would be considered reasonably trivial. In this case, triviality is certain, as it is basically notifying people of an album release. There is no in depth review of the album or the person, just releasing of information, which is talked about in the second to last bullet point of number one in Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Benboy00 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned does not mean non-notable. Compare an internet search of Cloudkicker with any other band you consider a "myspace band", and take into account how Cloudkicker operates (One sole member, DIY, non touring, Giving away all of his substantial amount of material for free). I've also mentioned numorous online articles that are within Wikipedias guidelines for WP:ALBUM/SOURCE.Hanznolo (talk) ,9 October 2013 (UTC)
It nearly always does mean that, at least for our purposes. Unsigned musicians rarely if ever generate the type of substantial coverage in reliable sources necessary for a Wikipedia article. I can't even remember the last time an unsigned musician was kept after an Articles for Deletion discussion. At the very least, for that to happen there would have to be a truly extraordinary case for some other reason, which this isn't. I know this isn't exactly the ideal place to give career advice, but if not touring and giving away music isn't producing the results you want, maybe it's time to rethink that whole strategy? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If by "results you want" you mean having a wikipedia article, then maybe so. But he makes money from people buying his albums. They have the option to download it for free if they choose, yet people still pay. Hanznolo (talk) , 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. One Sputnik staff review is not enough. The rolling stone India piece is just him talking about himself, an exception for WP:music#1. The djent reader poll is not a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't intended as mere "promotion". It's a musicians wikipedia article like the rest of them. Also, I never said the djent poll was an award, I was trying to give some evidence that he could be a considered a "leader of a genre". Hanznolo (talk) , 16 October 2013 (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.
