Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Mission

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Mission (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)

Excruciatingly non-notable band that abysmally fails WP:BAND. Article was created by a notorious wikispammer whose arbcom revealed these atrocities [1]. The guy has his own company, the Association for Consciousness Exploration, which hosts the Starwood Festival, and for the past six years he's been creating and defending promotional articles about everyone who's ever been associated with the festival. Incredibly, this article about Trance Mission has been tagged for lack of references for nearly five years now. That's the way the guy operates--writes a bunch of completely unsourced articles about all of his friends, the articles somehow survive here for years, and then if anybody touches an article of "his," he goes berserk per WP:OWN. It's time to stand up for the integrity of Wikipedia and finally remove this WP:ADVERT. He likes to WP:CANVASS like mad, so the closing admin should watch out for meat puppets. Qworty (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete References do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Surely it qualifies under G5? Lukeno94 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely do NOT delete I have now taken steps to begin to correct this article which was admittedly lacking in some essential truths about Trance Mission AND somewhat misdirected regarding even the names of the members of the band. As time allows There will be more links and references put into the page over the next few days which will once and for all establish the good name AND provenance of this group and give it the necessary gravitas to be worthy of the page it currently occupies. While I accept certain elements of Qworty's critique of the manner in which this page was originally placed I appreciate the opportunity to both set the record straight and begin to address some of the concerns of those who have so far commented in this thread. Personally I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so I am moving comparatively slowly with the links/references/coding aspect. User:MungoWildebeest18:40 13 November 2012

Really? It reads more like an advert now than ever! I still see no evidence whatsoever this band ever charted. Your edit summary of "put in PR references and links" says enough for me. The article is an absolute mess now. I still see this as being a clear delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A band does not have to "chart" to become notable, and in fact most "bands" do not aspire to "chart". That's the most ridiculous criterion for notability I've ever heard. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, it looks like they did chart for 18 weeks on CMJ's new world music chart.[2] Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Trance Mission, Stephen Kent, Kenneth Newby, and City of Tribes are all notable in the music world.[3] Qworty has most certaintly failed WP:BEFORE. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Billboard magazine has at least four articles that mention them. I have updated the article accordingly.  The Steve  11:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Trance Mission is a notable and unique band featuring Stephen Kent (musician), perhaps the most prominent didgeridoo player in the recording industry. A simple reading of the nomination by Qworty above will show that this is not about Trance Mission, but an attack on me personally and an attempt to re-litigate a six year old arbcom he didn't like the outcome of. The article can certainly use some work, but please don't be distracted, just judge the subject on its own merits.Rosencomet (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable based on what guideline? --Nouniquenames 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um, the GNG? Coverage in independent, reliable sources like SF Weekly, Billboard Magazine, The Oregonian, and The Seattle Times. These are all in the article itself, should you deign to read it... The Steve  01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG. Also trout the nom, as this discussion should not entertain the author questions presented. --Nouniquenames 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. The band does not fail GNG. They are widely known in the music world, they've been written about extensively in the music literature (see the further reading section for a sample) and they are considered notable. This is a bad faith nomination complete with bad faith "delete" votes made by editors who never bothered to check WP:BEFORE. Trouts all around are needed. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as more sources have turned up. --Nouniquenames 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What this band has done with the didgeridoo is remarkable and quite notable. I was really impressed when I heard them on 98 Rock (WIYY) in Baltimore a few months ago. Too bad the article says so little about this accomplishment; it needs plenty of expanding, not deletion. I'm concerned about the tone of the delete nomination, specifically the comment, "abysmally fails". Folklore1 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trance Mission is a known band and features one of the worlds most renown didgeridoo players. This entry should be kept. Vittala (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient coverage already cited in the article, and a suitable GBooks search makes notability obvious. Even if WP:BEFORE had been followed, a nominator should be open to the possibility of being wrong, and avoid statements like that opening sentence. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen this band play and are most definitely very unique. The didgeridoo is not a prop instrument either, and is used quite handily in a way I've never seen other bands attempt. As stated above, it features a world renowned didgeridoo player as well. Sidianmsjones (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't give a rat's ass about electronica or digeridoos or any of that crap and I haven't been canvassed. One glance at the GBooks search greenlinked by Michig above should bring this challenge to a rapid end, I think. Multiple independently-published sources showing in the piece and others out there on the internets... Carrite (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Never heard of them, but reliable sources have certainly taken enough notice for them to pass WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is another example of how a delete tag can save an article. This is sourced nicely at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with User:Sue_Rangell.--Vidkun (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (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.