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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Information Society[edit]

Natural Information Society (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)

This is a non-notable music ensemble which does not have WP:SIGCOV significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:RS. Sources include brief mentions but no in depth coverage. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Though it has been significantly edited since the opening of the nomination, I believe a review of this version supports it as an article independent from Joshua Abrams on the basis of dedicated coverage by Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Musicworks, Pitchfork, etc., with more incidental coverage in Spin, The Observer, etc.
  The article also used to note a few other items that help establish suitability, but that have since been deleted [1] from the version live of this timestamp; for instance, it used to note that "In 2017, the group was described by NPR as a "staple" of the underground music scene in Chicago". In other cases, uncited information has been added [2] seemingly for the purpose of tagging it "uncited" [3]. In still other cases, sources that help establish notability like Time Inc.'s Uncut have been removed as "unreliable" [4]. A "unreliable sources" tag was added to the top of the page with the edit summary "many sources are unreliable" [5]; at the time the tag was added, the only sources used in the article were: Pitchfork, The Observer, The Guardian, Musicworks, Rolling Stone, the University of Chicago, The Stranger, and Spin. I would respectfully encourage editors, therefore, to review the earlier version of the article (linked above) before indicating their Keep/Delete preference. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment "uncut" reference was removed because it is a BLOG. Blogs are always considered unreliable and cannot be used as references in articles. Please see WP:RS.

Blogs can especially not be used to source information or text in a WP:BLP article about any living person. Speaking of BLP violations, how did you promote and publish this draft through the AFC process, while it contained all those BLP violations? O, this draft You pushed to the main space while it contained "copyright violations"? I see you hurriedly made an edit, and hopefully fixed that. I am just not getting it, plus the other night, when the same thing happened with another draft you pushed to main with copyright violations, that were caught an hour later by a different editor. Yay him! Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the case of a Time Inc. publication written by a staff journalist, WP:NEWSBLOG applies? Vis a vis the rest of the argument about BLP, last night, the different editor, etc., I apologize - I don't mean to ignore it - but I'm not quite following; it might just be me and the early hour! Chetsford (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nominator. 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacypaperclip (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, aren't you the nominator? [6] Perhaps you meant to register this from an authorized alternate account and forgot to switch. Chetsford (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strike duplicate vote. And Chetsford, please try to AGF. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* comment I have seen that done on other AFDs, that is why it says as per nominator. I guess people think it is easier to count !votes accurately. No problem though, whichever way you want it. No worries! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! AFD can sometimes be a little arcane. Thanks for clarifying! Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article looks like a promotional, fancruft type article used to promote this "musicical ensemble". This one should have been speedy deleted. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Keep. There's easily enough coverage to meet WP:BAND, lots of which is already referenced by the article. — sparklism ^hey! 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Joshua Abrams (musician). Although I do think that the article's creator has demonstrated enough reliable third-party coverage to justify an article, I'm struggling to see exactly where the line gets drawn between the musician and this collective that he leads. Especially so because some of the albums listed in this article's (now-deleted) discography also appear in the discography for Abrams. And so, it seems best to collect all of the information into a single article.

  I also must comment on the actions of the nominator here. I get very nervous when I see a nominator deleting sourcing from an article that they have (or soon will have) nominated for deletion. Invariably, the justification is that the sources were not relevant or reliable. But the relevance, significance and reliability of sourcing is precisely what we discuss here at Articles for Deletion. If the nominator believes that some sourcing in the article is not appropriate, then this should be pointed out in the nomination statement. But the silent removal of those sources will lead either to a less-informed discussion or to wasted effort on the part of commenters who spend time recovering sources that had already been in the article just days (or maybe hours) before. And in this particular case, the removal was all the more troubling because of the spurious reasons given by the nominator. At one point, the nominator declared that Ben Ratliff, writing in the New York Times, was not reliable. Really? And you won't see that source in the article right now, because the nominator removed it altogether based on the theory that the same reviewer can't be used twice in the same article (despite the fact that these were reviews of two different albums done some five years apart). (See here for reliability tag and, three minutes later, here for the removal.) And the notion that blogs are inherently unreliable is patently false -- it all depends on who's writing it. And yet, we saw that incorrect application of policy used to justify the removal of a blog hosted on the website of Uncut (magazine) that was by-lined to that magazine's editor. That blog was just as reliable as the magazine itself. But the nominator removed it not just once but twice, with no apparent attempt to discuss the matter with the article's creator. (See here for the first removal and here for the second.)

  But even more troubling to me is the nominator's ownership attitude towards an article that they are trying to get deleted. The nominator placed an {{in use}} banner on the article, but left it in place even after their editing ceased. We'll never know how long the nominator intended to leave that banner on the article, because it was finally removed by another editor some 32 hours after it was placed there. But we do know that, when the hapless article creator attempted to work on the article after an hour of inactivity by the nominator, they were met with the threat of an ANI report for something called an "(in use) violation". (See here.)

  So what are we to make of these actions by the nominator? A charitable observer might call them unseemly. A less charitable one might call them outrageous. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary - I have similar concerns. In view of them, I've restored the earlier version as it was prior to the edits made by the nominator. This also converts the article from the bullet-point list into which it was rewritten by the nom, back into normal prose. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closer: The nominator (Lacypaperclip) and one of the !voters (Bythebooklibrary) have both been indeffed as sockpuppets of each other. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2018 (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.