Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briar Rose (band)

Briar Rose (band)

Briar Rose (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seemingly non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Multiple albums on Roaar Records, but this appears to be a minor and probably itself nn indie label. No sources. Declined prod per talk page. tomasz. 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I have provided you with quite a few references in print and online media. It is FAR from uncommon for a band or artist to be listed on an indie label as many major artists have established their own label in response to the ingnorance if the majors. If you had read the page for Roaar Records you would have seen that it was established with one act as it's starting point...much like that Apple Records did with that Beatles band (no i'm not comparing them,). It seem to be that because you do not know the band you assume that others in other countries do not or you just don't like the band. The references and links have been corrected and references to the band are made by people that Wikipediea has ALL OVER THE PLACE for other artists. Again they are working with a Grammy nominated producer of Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame Bands, you cant get there by not having done REAL musician work. I ask you not to remove the band.

Linda Marie (TinkerBoop)(TinkerBoop (talk))

• Note: i added the user's "keep" !vote at the start of the above paragraph based on its contents. The rest of the text was transferred from the talk page. tomasz. 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, now that references to multiple independent reliable non-trivial sources have been added. Needs some work though. 96T (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry, when i wrote "no sources" in my nomination i forgot about the ones in the "References" section (although i don't particularly believe they're enough). To clarify: the article is actually exactly the same as when i nominated it. have stricken the inaccurate "no sources" from my nomination. tomasz. 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm aware of this band and would protest the deletion based on the criteria given. This band has released albums that have sold in Europe and internationally. They are active, recording a new album with a well known producer and have a UK street team for European promotion.

The criteria given for possible deletion seems biased toward major label bands. Arguably this could be a credible criteria in the past, but in this internet era many bands publish on their own or small labels and their music is available internationally via Itunes or via download from other outlets. This makes it hard to guage sales or interest in many bands that have large followings.

It's in the public interest for Wikipedia to provide information on bands on smaller labels. This can help the public find information that is reliable for the bands that interest them. I'm a fan of many goth metal bands in Europe that have multiple albums on Itunes and many of them have no Wikipedia reference. I've been very happy when I did see a Wikipedia page for many of them and learned more about the band. I hope this criteria isn't applied to all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsoul2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• now copied in full from the band's discussion page. Sorry I did not get the whoel entry the first time. TinkerBoop (TinkerBoop (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

• Keep. I was not going to comment here but I have been asked to look at this situation and comment. That is my only reason for being here right now. With the "no sources" now addressed and stricken it leaves only the following reason as "appears to be a minor and probably itself nn indie label.". I would suggest then, if that is the argument that it holds no validity in the modern recording and distribution of music. There are hunderds of artists, especially in the "Hip-Hop" field that have NO label at all and sell volumes of recorded material from basement mix tape labels that they create in their living rooms or basements. To an extent, there are indie labels that offer nothing but downloadable product that goes well under a great many radars. That is the entire basis of an indie label. To hold ANY artist from any genre as suspect because the label they are on does not appear to be big enough, supports the idea of a bias in favor of the major labels and is clearly an unfair agenda. In going into the history of the article I find outside of correction notices to the author and CONSTRUCTIVE edits that it is one person that truely objects to the entry. The crime here that the author seems to have made is that they were being custodial in updating the page with factual, correct and non-promotional info. Is that not part of the goal of Wikipedia?? I have extensively checked Wikipedia and found a great many acts of all genres that have NO "Legit" product released and yet they are here, unhampered. Releasing product on "labels" that they make up on their own and I doubt pay taxes on. That's indie too. A stand against the system. In closing there is no such thing as "a minor and probably itself nn indie label". Indie is indie regardless if they sell a limited edition of 100 45rpm recordings of a band or a limited 5000 copies of a CD (pretty standard in this genre). That is what indie is. Thank you. (Randy Blake II (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

The only reason left after the sources isn't just the small part you quoted, but a failure to meet any part of Wikipedia's music notability guidelines. There are indeed hundreds of artists in the positions you mention, but they don't have articles here without meeting at least one point of those twelve; there is such a thing as "a minor and probably itself nn indie label" by those guidelines. We're not here to make value judgments about the nature of modern music distribution but simply to see if they meet those criteria. tomasz. 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT In looking at the criteria list you mention and I believe you authored or were part of its creation, I can say point blank that there are hundreds of bands on Wikipedia that indeed have not met those Orwellian "Animal Farm" criteria where Briar Rose has met some of them. Obviously you did not see that as you previously did not see that there are indeed VALID, major references afforded to the band. From the criteria list I cite items #1, #2, #4, #7 & #11 if it is to include European radio as the band's PRIMARY fan base is in Europe where they were in rotation in Germany at one time and are currently in rotation on the Canadian radio CISM-FM.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "CISM-FM (Communication Information Sur la Montagne) is the official radio station of Université de Montréal. It is student-run on a volunteer basis and can be heard in Montreal, Canada, and its outlying regions, or by internet users around the world through live-streaming technology. A great variety of shows are broadcast daily in the French language.

As early as 1970, Université de Montréal students developed the idea of a French college radio station. In 1980, a requested feasibility study gave place to recommendations for a potential radio broadcasting school. At noon on October 7, 1985, CISM broadcast its first radio show over the university's campus. In July 1990, CISM gained its FM broadcast permit from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Then, on March 14, 1991, CISM's broadcasting antenna was boosted to 10 000 watts. With a broadcasting radius of 70 km, CISM is now the world's largest French-language college radio station." Knowing people in Quebec I can assure you this IS NATIONAL CANADIAN RADIO.

There are bigger acts in wikipedia with NO references at all on the page yet they remain. I have added everything i have at the moment, I don't have it all and I have done my best to adhere to the structure of Wikipedia. Outside of more info that you yourself ackowledged but would like more, I see no real reason why this band should be removed other then what appears to be a genre bias.

Linda Marie (TinkerBoop (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

• Note In Tomasz's response to me he mentions the following: "There are indeed hundreds of artists in the positions you mention, but they don't have articles here without meeting at least one point of those twelve'", meaning the criteria list. If by his words a band must have one of the critera then I would say that of the 5 criteria TinkerBoop has mentioned I can tell you that without argument that the band FULLY meets with criteria #4 reprinted here: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." I would cite the references that TinkerBoop has mentioned in the reference section of the page that Tomasz has stated he "forgot about".:

"Briar Rose Anxious To Return To Europe" - Interview with Randy Blake II & Marcus Lorde by Kathleen Durand of The Herald News, February 28, 1992. A newspaper published in Fall River, Massachusetts. Located in the paper's "Friday" magazine on the cover & page 6.

"Swansea's Briar Rose To Perform At Venus" - Interview with Randy Blake II by Debra Ryan of The Spectator, March 25, 1992, pg.23. A newspaper published in Somerset, Massachusetts.

BOTH articles deal with details of the UK tour and future plans to record and return.

I also would like it to be known here, under the advice of legal council, who I have asked to become a member of Wikipedia to monitor this situation as it borders of claims against the band's accoplishments and credibility, that I am the owner of all tour documentation including schedules, dates, media (print and television)FOR the UK tour. I also hold audio telephone recordings with former and then Kerrang! Editor Geoff Barton inviting the band to the offices for drinks while they are in the UK. I also hold television footage from Rhode Island CBS affiliate WLNE-TV Interviewing the band and a performace from them as result of the UK tour. I also hold radio brodcasts from Rhode Island station WQRI located on the campus of Roger Williams College announcing the tour, the Elektra records developement deal and a 1 hour interview with the full band broadcast on ther return from the UK. That is just for a start.

It is also odd the Tomasz has not seen in the article for the career section on the page that clearly states: "A tour of the U.K. was planned but was postponed as DeMello, Tylla & Simonin left the band to pursue other musical interests. Blake II & Lorde followed through with the tour using hired musicians.".

It seems a little strange that if you were going to slate something for deletion that you would have actually READ the page as it appears that it was not read, leading one to suspect bias. There is no reason based on what Tomasz is offering up here that the band is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Tinkerboop certainly has done her research and suprised me as to what she has included here. There seems to be something else going on here as other members of Wikipedia have seen this page that I believe has been up for roughly two weeks and offered constructive advice on how to make the page acceptable to Wikipedia and had no problem with its inclusion. The research presented in the page is accurate and varifiable. It does seem that there is something else afoot here. The band has met many of the criteria and certainly #4 of the criteria list is met, documented, and varifiable. I hope this is of help. I will check in. (Randy Blake II (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC))