Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ogdens

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ogdens

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

Article fails to establish notability of the band per

WP:BAND ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you clarify how the band meets the threshold of notability outlined at
WP:BAND? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The Ogdens meet the notability criteria No.1 and 5.
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. - I have numerous live and record reviews from British newspapers and foreign magazines. How should I cite these?
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). - Their album is also on an indie label that has been going for ten years and is currently on it's 87th release including . Should I just say that in the article? Does somebody keep a list of labels that fulfil the criteria that I can refer to? Gusdeadman (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to criteria 1: To cite sources, you can very simply add:
Newspaper/Magazine article: <ref>Title of article,author of article, (Title of newspaper/magazine, date of article)</ref>
Book: <ref>Title of book, author of book, (publisher, date of publication)</ref>
Website: <ref>[http://web-page-address Title of webpage], author of page, date of page's creation, website name</ref>
You put these at the end of the statement which the reference supports (e.g. The band performed sell-out gigs Wembley Stadium for 10 days in a row in the Summer of 1967<ref>''Famous Band sets Wembley Record'', John E. BeeGud (The Times, 22 December 1967)</ref>.
With regard to criteria 5: their forthcoming album is their first, so they fail to meet this criteria. It may be the label's 87th release, but a band does not inherit its label's notability - even if the label was to be considered notable from Wikipedia's point of view, which as they do not have an article is debateable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The late John Peel played many songs from many artists - yet not every one of those would be counted as notable from Wikipedia's point of view.
  2. Having a single produce by Peter Watts is obviously good for the band, but he has produced hundreds of records, including for obviously notables such as Lenny Kravitz, XTC, John Martyn, Kirsty MacColl, The Cult and Lloyd Cole. The fact that he produced one of their songs would not in itself make the band notable, any more than the fact that he produced for the named people/groups does not make them notable.
  3. Being on the same bill as The Stone Roses is not notable. Notability is not inherited - The Stone Roses (and most other major acts) have often had a minor act on the same bill as them, most of whom would not be counted as notable.
  4. The singles reviews, though useful as information, do not indicate notability. The sources involved (Record Mirror, NME, MM) all review hundreds of singles every year - most of which are not notable in the long term. What we really need to see is an indication that any of these actually charted - that tends to be the basic criteria for the notability of a single, an EP or an album.
  • Overall, although it is good to see sources like this, the overall impact is not enough to persuade me of the notability as per
    Black Lace
    's "The Birdie Song" received a lot of air play during the summer of 1981, yet no one in their right mind would suggest that it should have an article! Very few bands have articles if they have not charted. So, for me personally, I would need to see some indication of their long-term notability - and the fact that they only ever released 3 singles, none of which seem to have charted, and have not released an album (I would have expected them to have released an album in the late 1980s when their singles were released - why the 20 year wait? If I was a cynic, I would say that they are trying to re-launch a washed-up career) would seem to indicate me that they are not notable enough for inclusion.
  • Incidently, I know I said that I needed adequate references - and the ones provided are certainly useful - but they do not show the significance of the band. NME, MM, RM, etc would have had lots of similar singles reviews, and most of them would be for bands who also do not justify having an article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course The Birdie Song deserves a page and indeed does have one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Dance . We are not snobs, are we? We are not here to judge the subject matter of the article, only the quality of the article. The Birdie Song was possibly the nadir of British music and IMHO anybody who bought it should be ashamed but it was a cultural phenomenon and is a valid part of Wikipedia, as is everything that is real including The Ogdens.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The Birdie Song (in this case The Tweets version) is only mentioned in three sentences in the Chicken Dance - the article is not actually about that one version, but the Swiss song from the 50s. As that song has been recorded in so many variations and languages, it deserves an article of its own - but the Tweet's version or Black Lace's version would not. Unless you are saying that the Ogden's work has been re-recorded in multiple languages (and achieved success)? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply No Steve, that was not my reasoning and I don't know why you would think that. I was saying that whether we feel a song, band, or other art work is "important" or not in a cultural sense is irrelevant to whether it should appear on WP. What matters is that someone thinks is. You sought to use The Birdie song as an example of something that was unworthy of a page. I disagreed with you and pointed out that it did have it's own page. The Chicken Dance and The Birdie Song are the same tune, it is an instrumental, the words were added later but not used by The Tweets. I wasn't trying to catch you out merely to point out that our points of view are different but equally valid.Gusdeadman (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a record played by John Peel is certainly noteable. Having all the singles released by a band played by John Peel and having one chosen for the monthly five song selection he played on the World Service is even more notable. John Peel did indeed play hundreds of songs by hundreds of bands but rejected thousands more. He was an arbiter of taste for at least four generations of British and European listeners. Having his stamp of approval is significant. If The Ogdens were good enough for John Peel then they are good enough for Wikipedia.
    • Reply As much as I admired and respected the late John Peel, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia does not include "If John Peel played their songs, and especially if he chose one of their songs for his World Service selection, they are automatically notable". Again, apart from press attention at the time of the release, these singles and the band had not achieved coverage in the 2 decades since. They split up, and now they are releasing an album, and I am beginning to suspect that you have some involvement with the band, and want to help publicise their new album (and the band themselves). If this is not the case, I apologise publicly here, but that is the impression I am getting. Again, find some significant coverage (apart from at the time of their 3 single releases in the late 80s) which demonstrate that they are notable long-term. I have specifically mentioned finding books, etc, apart from in the late 80s when they released their singles - I couldn't find any, but my resources offline are limited. I can't think of any other band who released three singles in the 80s (which didn't chart), and who were never heard of again, who would be counted as notable as Wikipedia defines notability. As I said on your talk page, there are other wikis out there who have less stringent criteria for inclusion, I am sure there are websites out there that would be quite happy to add your material, or you could develop your own wiki/website - then you can decide on the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per
    reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per nom and
    WP:BAND - no significant coverage and no evidence that their album or singles have charted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
1. Single review, Danny Kelly (New Musical Express, 13/08/1988) - 1 paragraph
2. John Peel Show, John Peel (BBC, 22/06/1989) - Radio Programme, Record play plus 1 minute discussing the record, most records only merited a brief mention to give the name.
3. Single review, (Sounds, 25/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs
4. Dangerous Bands In Safe Hands, (Musician - The Journal of the Musicians Union, September 1989) - 3 paragraphs
5. Doing it our way - The Ogdens, Lizzie Hird (Pimlico Matters, February 1990) - 11 paragraphs
6. The Ogdens, Jimi (House of Dolls Magazine, August/September 1988) - 10 paragraphs
7. Puffin Power! The Rich Issue No. 69, TS (I-D Magazine, May 1989) - 4 paragraphs
8. Debut single for former triangle DJ, (Coleraine Chronicle, August 1988) - 3 paragraphs
9. Ogdens face Maggie's seduction, Robin Yates (South London Press, 1/12/1989) - 9 paragraphs
10. Stan by your Man, Mr Wang (Jømp Avak Magazine, 1988) - 48 paragraphs
11. Live Review - Kennington, Simon Doobery (New Musical Express, 20/2/1988) - 6 paragraphs
12. Live Review - Goldsmiths Tavern, Stephen Dalton (New Musical Express, 25/2/1989) - 2 paragraphs
13. Live Review from The Cricketers, Vic Park (TNT Magazine, Issue 308) - 5 paragraphs
14. Live!, Andrew Mueller (Melody Maker 29/9/1990) - 5 paragraphs
15. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs
16. Single review, AS (Record Mirror, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs
17. Single review, BC (Record Mirror, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs
18. Single review (New Musical Express, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs
19. Single review, Jonh Wilde (Melody Maker, 24/06/1989) - 1 paragraph
20. Single review, Jerry Smith (Music Week, 17/06/1989) - 1 paragraph
21. Single review (Spex Magazine (Germany), November 1989) - 1 paragraph
22. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 11/11/1989) - 1 paragraph
23. Single review (LAW, 6/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs
Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete - Notable as stated above and a significant cult band of the indie scene of it's time. This page would be a huge boon to researchers, as it was to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonager (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete - concur with contentions of notability as stated above. I saw the band live many times in the late 1980's, own all three singles, and was delighted to find that a Wikipedia page existed when they came to mind recently and I searched the net for further information on what had become of them. I am surprised and disappointed to discover that Wikipedia bases its decisions regarding what does and does not qualify for inclusion on such arbitrary criteria, so much so that I have created this account for the express purpose of saying so.Patrowles (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring the ongoing sock/meat puppetry issues at this AFD, the article is lean at best. Seem to fail
    WP:BAND - bluntly; get notable, then get an article. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - The argument against the article appears to revolve around notability judged purely on what can be found online. This is a very narrow view of the world, all sources contemporary to the subject need to be taken into account. The Internet barely existed when The Ogdens were playing live and most of the material is in printed or photographic form, this needs to be borne in mind otherwise Wikipedia will become a precis of the Web, documenting only things that have already been well documented and not become the serious repository of knowledge it aims to be. Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Gusdeadman, I am going to reiterate what I have said a few times one final time. I have freely acknowledged that resources may need to be found offline. However, to show that the Ogdens were indeed as notable as you claim, you need to find references to them beyond the publicity for their singles when released. If they are notable, then there should be references to them in books about music history, books about the Indie music scene, books about 80s music - and in magazine articles written in the mid-90s onwards. I again freely admit that in the limited resources I have to hand (local libraries) I have been unable to find a single mention of them in any of the books I could find about these areas. You mention Wikipedia being a serious repository of knowledge - that is indeed the aim - and to be taken seriously, the articles need to be demonstrated to be notable. Notability does not mean that there were mentions about the band in the year or so that they released the only 3 (non-charting) singles they produced. Almost all bands who released singles could have those references provided. To be truly notable, there must be some mention beyond that time scale. This band released 3 singles in 1988 and 1989. All the references provided were published between February 1988 and September 1990. Coverage of a band which extends for 2 and a half years could hardly be considered significant coverage - especially when you consider that 11 of the 20 provided references are reviews of the singles and 4 are reviews of their live performance. Unless evidence can be provided (and as I say, I've looked offline but found nothing) that they received significant coverage somewhere (probably a book or a newspaper/magazine article) showing that they were considered notable outside of that period when they were releasing their singles, then I cannot see how you can justify them being notable. The very fact that Wikipedia is trying to be a serious repository of knowledge means that this article should be deleted. Otherwise, people who come across the article will say "OK, so they are a minor band who released 3 singles that didn't chart - why the hell are they in this serious encyclopedia, when they don't seem to be notable in any way". Your very argument points to the reason why (in my opinion) this article cannot be in Wikipedia.
    • You are obviously a big fan of the band, and want an article about them on Wikipedia - but being a fan is not enough to make them notable. Find other artists (preferably ones who have articles on Wikipedia) who have cited The Ogdens as a big influence. I couldn't find any other article on Wikipedia that mentions The Ogdens - and there are lots of articles about notable Indie bands... was no one influenced by them? That would be another indication of notability. The article
      Indie_music_scenes#Independent_music_scenes_in_Britain_and_Ireland
      shows quite a few British bands in the Independent Music scene - none of these appear to have been influenced by The Ogdens, or if they do, no sources have been found to indicate that.
    • This will be my final word on this matter, unless evidence of notability is established as per the criteria I have given here (and elsewhere). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment -
        Indie_music_scenes#Independent_music_scenes_in_Britain_and_Ireland is a very light page and fails to mention Merseybeat or The Beatles so I wouldn't be tempted to cite this as a definitive guide to British musical culture.Gusdeadman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Response The Beatles were not an indie group -they may have started off that way, but quickly became a mainstream group. The Merseybeat genre covers both indie and mainstream music. I specifically gave the link to the Independent music scene in Britain and Ireland as your argument is based on the fact that you perceive The Ogdens to be an important part of the Indie scene. That link was provided as an example of the kind of groups that should refer to The Ogdens being an influence. See also Category:Indie pop groups - none of the groups listed their (not just in the British sub-category but also in the other sub-categories) mention the Ogdens as being an influence. My thinking is that if a group were truly notable, and are still notable 20 years later, they should have influenced later groups - and yet I can find no references (online or offline) that show that they were influential on other groups - in the Indie scene or in mainstream. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response What happened to your "final word"? Anyway, my point was that, it was a very poor page to cite. Other descrepancies include mentioning Lily Allen, who is on Warners and omitting Trip Hop.Gusdeadman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Twenty three different citations seems pretty notable to me. Having a record company deem that they are worthy of a retrospective album release after twenty years seems very notable to me. Record Mirror wrote at the time of the second single "the summer of love will be remembered by the nation for their debut 'Beautiful Day'" just because some researchers have failed to pick up on this does not mean they did not have a certain importance within indie music. I'm not saying they changed the world, just that this is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. Gusdeadman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Being 'worthy' of a retrospective album isn't indication of notability. I would be a bit more convinced if it was being released by a major label rather than a minor independent label like Firestation Records, but my impression is that this is just a washed-up band trying to revive a jaded career that has not gone anywhere major. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Please stop insulting the group, it undermines your point of view. Anyway, how is a band "washed-up" when they have an album out in a few weeks? They seem far from being "washed up", it's clear the story is not over yet.Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've given you the guidelines many times over now! How many times do we have to tell you to follow the guidelines if you expect to see this article get something other than deleted? You're running out of time. Forgive me for sounding like a
            dick, but it's time for you to put up or shut up. You want to make me say keep? Then quit arguing and fix the article! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 18 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ogdens&oldid=1141942176"