Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck

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. Tan | 39 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

John Dahlbäck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Tan | 39 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am withdrawing my nomination of this AfD due to insights presented by Michig below - this DJ didn't just have featured tracks during a radio show; he WAS the radio show. Coupled with a few more sources, I think notability has been sufficiently established. However, I am not closing this AfD due to the two delete votes pending below. Tan | 39 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The assertion of notability is (at least) under WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12 for his appearance on the Essential Mix on BBC 1, as put forward in the response to the nominator on talk:John Dahlbäck. Sebisthlm (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT 3: There might be a bit of a cultural misunderstanding about the wonderful art of DJing, that User:Michig may have unveiled. To understand the notability of the Essential Mix appearance you have to understand that a DJ's work of art is the actual act of selecting, playing and mixing together records for an audience. Top Dj's are payed tons of money "just" for playing and mixing their records (according to this source, which is by no means a reliable source, but merely meant to show what ball park we're talking about), Paul Oakenfold is payed 21 lakh rupees (over 42,000 USD) for a two and a half hour set. This means that Dahlbäck's performance on the BBC, is a direct equivalence to a band performing live for 75 minutes on Britain's biggest national radio, something I foolishly thought that everyone would automatically understand. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I brought up only the Essential mix appearance because I thought it would be an open goal. Now, anyone who's ever watched football knows that it's entirely possible to shoot over an empty net from a yard's distance, so I'll expand the rationale with something I thought would be obvious; his discography. Something no-one of the three contributors who want to delete the article has brought up. Let me also point out that the article was created yesterday evening (CET) and that it's a stub pending expansion on both content and sources. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT 2: On a sidenote that doesn't have a direct bearing on this AfD, I might just add that articles in German, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish exist in respective Wikipedias. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable independent sources, please? The BBC link provides little info and the myspace page clearly isn't independent. Wickethewok (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: WP:MUSIC criteria #12 dictates that the artist be the subject of a radio broadcast. This "broadcast" was an hour-long mix show that, per the BBS page, "featured" him. While this is more than nothing, in my opinion, it does not satisfy the spirit of music notability requirements. Coupled with a dearth of reliable sources, there's not much choice but to delete. Tan | 39 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the problem? WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network". Is there a question whether he actually appeared on BBC1? Is there a question of the length of the broadcast or the nationwide spread of BBC1? Shall I interpret your reservations as questioning whether he was "subject" of the broadcast? Sebisthlm (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sooner you understand that this discussion is not an indictment on your contributions to Wikipidia or you yourself, the easier this will be for you. As you ask above, the problem is as I stated succinctly above that - the notability requirements state that the artist needs to be the subject of a radio show, not merely a featured artist among many others. There is no question of whether or not his songs were played on BBC. Yes, you may interpret my reservations as you state. Tan | 39 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the Essential mix is a two hour mix show where the featured DJ plays a DJ set. It's not that John Dahlbäck's record have been played once during this broadcast, Mr Dahlbäck himself have played a set for at least an hour on British public radio (you can see the tracklisting here. If he played 25 tracks, and every track on an average two minutes, that would be 50 minutes. Now, you can of course raise the question of the notability of BBC Radio or the artistic value of DJing, but could you at least just try to absorb the the references I've given, since you're misunderstanding of the concept of the Essential Mix would have been avoided if you had just browsed through the article on the radio show in question, to which I've linked several times. I'm really trying to understand you're arguments, at least you could try to understand mine. Sebisthlm (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Neutral (see below) The problem is that reading the article and the given reference it appears to someone unfamiliar with the scene (such as myself) that Pete Tong may have played a couple of his records during a 2 hour slot (is a 3am slot prime time for this music? How old do I feel?) That would not constitute adequate evidence of notability. If he actually ran the show and played 25 records in a row, well that's slightly more notable, but I still don't think that makes him the 'subject' of a broadcast does it? Was he interviewed for half an hour to explore his life and works? We need more to show notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More info has been given here of his notability, though this was not clear from the article when it was AfDd. I don't consider that he's very notable, so I'm not bothered whether he gets a wiki or not. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't "Pete Tong playing a few of his records", it was him playing a 2 hour set, as a guest DJ on a regular show hosted by Pete Tong. - filelakeshoe 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that from the discussion here, but it's not clear from the article an relevant reference, and still, to my mind, doesn't meet the criteria. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning TrulyBlue. Are you saying that if you (as in anyone) read the article without knowing anything about the Essential Mix, but don't bother to click the link on it's article to find out what it is, you might misunderstand the article as failing notability. Frankly, it sounds a bit far-fetched. Also, even if English isn't my first language I've never heard anyone using the expression that someone "appears" on radio in the meaning that the person's record is played on the radio. I think by him appearing on BBC1 one it's pretty obvious the author means he appeared in person and not just that his records were played. From your second comment, should I interpret it that you wouldn't think playing records for two hours on BBC radio would meet the criteria under p12? You've also not commented on the discography. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that I read the article and the reference, and was still unclear as to what his coverage on Radio 1 was: it did read "He made an appearance on Pete Tong's 'The Essential Mix' ... " And when I followed the link it described the show as "featuring John Dahlbäck". To me, that could easily be a 2 minute interview with him. The information in this discussion makes it clear that Dahlbäck was a Radio DJ on Radio 1 for 2 hours. That's more than I understood from the wiki and reference, but is still not the same as being the subject of a radio programme. I understand the criteria to mean that there should be a programme that examines an individual's life and work, not simply letting them have a showcase - from a quick scan of the Essential Mix wiki, I see that Dahlbäck has done one show, among approximately 500 different hosts. I'm not saying he isn't notable for other reasons, but that the wiki as it stands does not establish notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, is 500 DJs supposed to be an unusually high amount given that the show has been aired weekly since 1993? I've come to understand that electronic dance music is not your forté, but I can assure you that the scene is big enough to produce 500 notable DJs during a 15 year span. Secondly, the discussion over one of the notability rationales seems to be digressing into a discussion on semantics, while my other rationale still is ignored. As for yours and Tanthalas39's interpretation of the word "subject" it's quite interesting. As I've said, I'm no expert on the notability of musicians, but it would strike me as odd, that while many of the other criteria is focused on the production and spreading of the artistic work through record-releases, concerts and so on. I just don't see why spreading the same work through the radio media wouldn't confer notability. But, since we're on the subject of semantics, the radio show is Pete Tong's and not Dahlbäck's so I would say that the subject of Pete Tong's show is the mix from John Dahlbäck. Furthermore, the format of the show is first introduction by Mr Tong to the featured artist, and then the actual mix, so I really don't see why this show wouldn't fall under p12. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate for others who may read, criterion #12 says, "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." (emphasis added) The article itself doesn't even suggest he was that. It says, "He made an appearance with a set". The criterion does not say that being included as one portion of a half an hour or longer broadcast confirms notability. But even if the article did say that he was the subject of the entire show, the cited source would not support that. It says, merely, "The world's biggest DJs on the world's biggest decks, featuring John Dahlback." () This could be one song, two songs, all songs. This could be featuring him as a musician or featuring him as a guest host. The text is unspecific. WP:MUSIC indicates, "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." Do you have a source that supports that he was the subject (as in the entire focus) of a half an hour or longer broadcast? If not, I'm afraid that we can't verify criterion #12. Anything else is original research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The work of art of a DJ is his or her mix, not necessarily music produced by him or her. As the discussion above would show, Dahlbäck himself played a substantial amount of time (a set of 75 minutes and 27 seconds, according to this source). The reason why I added the very brief BBC source is that at least it's a first hand source from the actual broadcaster. I've briefly looked for other sources but I haven't bothered to filter out all the download and blog pages yet, which all seem a bit unofficial. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article also states he's a producer. If the appearance on the BBC Radio show isn't enough, someone should investigate if his producing work provides any reasons to keep the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I speedy deleted the article as non-notable (A7) and was criticized by the OP for it. I still maintain there is not enough proof of notability under WP:MUSIC. If the OP can add some more reliable sources (secondary sources) then I'll change my mind. It can always be recreated then, so no big deal. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Michig's explanation (now I understand the difference). -- Alexf^(talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, no special reasons or comments on my argumentation or the discography? Sebisthlm (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not impressed by the article so far. I also agree with Stifle's Myspace test. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the aim of the article isn't necessarily to impress Mr Alexf, but rather being an acceptable stub as a basis for a future expansion. This isn't a GA review, this is a discussion with the aim of establishing the notability of the subject. I think the discussion would be helped if the persons who claims he fails notability would care to expand on their arguments. Now, the article was created yesterday evening, and I could of course have started it in my sandbox, finished a GA article and then create the actual article, but chances are I would never have finished such an article. The point with creating a stub is that it invites other people to contribute to it. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What's not impressive is your combative attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you, including your fun little snarky comment at my talk page. No one said this was a GA review and every argument here focuses on the notability of the subject. You want expansion on our arguments?! This entire page is filled with expansion on how this guy does not meet WP:MUSIC. If you truly believe that, given more time, you could bring this article to GA standards and concretely establish notability, then I suggest you get working - you have at least four more days this AfD will run, and instead of bashing everyone's opinion, you could actually work on your article. Yes, this is an official warning - you are being borderline uncivil, and your attitude in here has to stop. Tan | 39 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. He may meet criterion #11: national radio rotation. I simply don't know how reliable the source is that says so. (I picked it up on google news, but google news doesn't always stick with reliable sourcing.) According to charts in france profile, "John Dahlbäck's track “Blink/Sting”, currently in heavy radio rotation, is classified number 2 among downloads of electro music on Itunes." (Translation errors all my own. Source literally says, "Le morceau de John Dahlbäck, “Blink/Sting”, actuellement en fortes rotations radio, est classé numéro 2 des téléchargements électro sur Itunes.") The iTunes classification may be meaningless, but the rotation would not be...if that source is to be trusted. Since it seemed he might be notable in France, I thought to check the French wiki to see what his article was like there. I note his notability was challenged there as well, but the page was retained (see here), evidently on the basis of its position as #3 at FG DJ Radio. (I don't see anything indicating its position at that website, here.) On no project where this article exists does it seem to have anything like what we regard as reliable sourcing. I don't believe that the article currently asserts notability, and unless improved (which might include the above reference, if that source meets WP:V) I agree that it should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now leaning towards keep. Said "sizeable bio" on Billboard (mentioned by Neon white below) is a mirror of AMG, as they usually are. :) Hence, they should not both be considered. But the AMG listing seems significant, and both the BBC listing & "About" review are persuasive, although I'm confused by the licensing at BBC (it almost looks like a wiki, but it doesn't seem to be). I've been combing through google news; in addition to the promising but uncertain suggestion I referenced above, I've found quite a bit more, (here). Some of it is tucked behind a paywall, but it gives a tantalizing suggestion of widespread coverage. (For instance, "A lot of the new buzz names - Booka Shade, John Dahlback and Marc Romboy - are in here too, giving the album a lot of kudos" is hidden somewhere in here); "check uber-sexy remix of Sharam Jey's Push Your Body by John Dahlback" is in here; somebody listed "Best album: John Dahlback - Man from the Fall." in this article, but I don't know who.) I don't see anything that would likely be regarded as substantial in and of itself, but it looks slightly more than trivial. It's also widespread--as in internationally. Certainly, it seems like it ought to help sustain a reading of widespread coverage. Coupled with the stronger sources Neon white located (excluding redundancy), it may be enough for me. I don't think a reliable source has yet been presented for criterion #12, but I believe there could be sufficient for #1 and, again, possibly #11. (Re: the discography: currently it is sourced to discogs, which seems to be a wiki of sorts according to this. Are the albums released on "major label" or "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)"? I know that the label that has released most of his music is his own. To secure criterion #5, we'd need to verify that his label or the other two are notable themselves. It always comes back to WP:V.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It's completely inappropriate to nominate such a new article. As the guidelines state "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Some editors need to seriously calm down and stop rushing deletion nominations, there's no hurry! and no prizes for the nominator! You can watch an article for improvements and then nominate it after it has had time. --neon white talk 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep BBC has review a release of his as well as about.com and he has a sizeable bio on billboard.com and allmusic that can easily be used to make a well sourced article. Notable under criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC --neon white talk 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A DJ who combines tracks into a mix is different to a DJ who just puts some records on and talks between them. A lengthy national radio broadcast of such a DJ's mix is an indication of notability in my view. Whether you agree with that or not, he passes notability criteria based on significant coverage (BBC - review & Allmusic - biography and 2 reviews).--Michig (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a vital piece of information, that I who are very much into this scene thought was obvious. Of course it's not obvious that everybody knows the concept of DJing, even if there is a link in the article to the DJ article. Now I understand why some people seem to be splitting hairs over this essential mix appearence. But it can't really be required to explain the art of DJing in every article on a DJ, can it? Sebisthlm (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this raises a good point - the DJ article covers all definitions of DJ and seems a bit weak on this type of DJ (given the amount of coverage, radio play, and releases that are out there) which perhaps merits its own article. There are at least three completely different types of DJ - radio DJ, mix/hip-hop DJ, and reggae DJ (toaster) - it was obvious to me which type we were discussing here as I'm aware of the Essential Mix programme, but it may not have been obvious to others. Hopefully the significance of a lenghty DJ mix broadcast on national radio will now be clear - it's essentially a live performance by the DJ.--Michig (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: the 12 Google News hits when searching for "john dahlback".--Michig (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You got 12? I got 60 in the link I provided earlier in this debate. Are you filtering differently? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not intentionally - it defaulted to only the last month. I also get 60 when I'm paying attention enough to search properly.--Michig (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of a relief. :) I know that "google" is not the be-all and end-all of sourcing searches, but I found it kind of alarming to think it might be that divergent! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Searching John Dahlbäck with the accent over the a gets you different results to without. --neon white talk 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I did the first time, when I got the charts in france hit that mentions heavy radio rotation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, especially now that the article has been expanded and all of it is sourced correctly. - filelakeshoe 17:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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.