Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaveco.

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 redirect‎ to SNFU. A decision of what to merge from this article, if anything, can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveco.

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

Slaveco. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:
  • Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
  • Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
  • Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Local band that never released an album, nor did much of anything else required for notability here. No charted singles, no TV appearances, nor much media coverage beyond the local level. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly Redirect to SNFU as a compromise. This is a close call and that's why we have so many different opinions. This band did indeed get some newspaper coverage and was written up in histories of their local scene. But I agree with some of the voters above on how the band's coverage was largely gig announcements and histories of their associations with more established bands. Some will probably disagree, but Slaveco strikes me as a side project during a hiatus taken by SNFU, and the fact that they never released any recordings is crucial to the sustained notability question. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a redirect or a merge to a section over outright deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I can't see how WP:SUSTAINED is relevant. It says, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." The cited sources in the Slaveco. article are from 2004 (three newspaper articles), 2010 (documentary film), the 2012 book (though the 2020 edition is cited), and a 2024 book. The subject thus clearly has been covered in recent sources, not in a brief burst, in the 21 years since the band breakup. CCS81 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, two books that mention it as a sidestep to SMFU/Ken Chinn, which are the actual focuses of the books. The documentary is also about Ken Chinn, not the band. It's sort of like The Konrads: notable members, small regional coverage, but ultimately just a footnote of a larger project. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You did say that, but this is a separate claim from invoking WP:SUSTAINED. You claim the article is relevant only to SNFU and Ken Chinn, but in response I note that the band has two other noteworthy members. WP:SUSTAINED concerns the timing of the coverage; in this case, that covers about 20 years, including the two decades after the band's breakup. CCS81 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Oaktree b. No charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level. Maxcreator (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This repeated refrain of "charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level" is strange. WP:GNG specifies other criteria other than charted singles and TV appearances. The connection between notable musicians and "TV appearances" is tenuous. The coverage is not "local": Winnipeg, for instance, is 2300 km (1,400 miles, or a 24-hour drive) away from the band's home of Vancouver. CCS81 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes form NPMUSIC or NPALBUM standards, we use them here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] linked here for helping my explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the criteria, but they are used incorrectly here. There are 12 criteria cited at WP:GNG, and Slaveco. passes C1. You and the other poster specified only three of these criteria, including C2 and C12, skipping the other ten. The claim about the lack of non-local media coverage is false, as I say above. CCS81 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To reiterate, this page should not be straight-up deleted. It has at least two proper merge/redirect targets that it can be mentioned on. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The total of merge/redirect targets would be four: the three notable musicians, and SNFU. But these articles, particularly SNFU, will become unnecessarily bloated if we dump all this information into it. Better to keep it separate. CCS81 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SNFU is only around 3,000 words at the moment; adding around 300 words will not make it too bloated. It is a fairly simple fix to add a blurb on either of the two pages that "Ken Chinn formed Slaveco. with Jay Black, Matt Warhurst, and Shane Smith..." to mention the two other notable musicians. As of now, Ken Chinn#Personal struggles and third SNFU incarnation says something similar, so I would support a merge there. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding 300 words on another band sharing members to the SNFU article would be way too many words compared to the amount of coverage the other subjects get. Compare their live album and reunion tour from 1991-1992, one of the most important aspects of the band's career, which is currently covered in 52 words in the article. If we give 300 words to every comparably significant event in the band's history, the article would be a whole lot longer than 3,000 words. This is why we need sub-articles like the Slaveco. article (along with the independent notability, as established within the article). CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2025 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slaveco.