Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labbayk (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labbayk

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2013, G4ed in 2014. Lack of independent in-depth coverage of this Islamic vocal group. I am also nominating 4 albums released by the group which are almost entirely sourced from iTunes/Amazon/eMusic/CD Baby/etc. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of proper British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) references for this British Islamic music group (Labbayk). Also keep the Wikipedia pages of the albums of Labbayk because their albums are still available for sale/download and their Wikipedia pages contain factually correct and relevant information. The band is still active and perform worldwide according to the website (http://labbayknasheeds.com), Facebook^[1] and other social media^[2]^[3] pages of Labbayk. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) > — Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources ? Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Yes lots of coverage by independent sources, especially the BBC. Please check the list of references for foreign sources. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with one of the group members in BBC Asian Radio does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT - specifically it is clearly not independent - being an interview with a group member.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Huh? But Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi. Besides, there are other BBC interviews and foreign media coverage. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen all that many interviews in my search - however regardless - interviews with group members is coverage that is not independent of the group. Per WP:ORGCRIT - we need SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I'll have to disagree with you. Isn't the BBC coverage impartial, significant and trustworthy enough? Even the significant third party news coverage (foreign press coverage) such as Kuwaiti News, is very reliable. Liberty Pedia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote once (your bolded keeps). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the group´s albums, the group is far from being notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BAND #4. The group has performed some international concert tours. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BAND-4 requires SIGCOV of the tour - which does not exist here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is provided, as shown by the coverage of third party news outlets. Liberty Pedia (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Let us know about your definition of SIGCOV. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The articles mostly cite the group, their (non-notable) label, websites selling their music, lyrics sites, and trivial mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The deepest coverage is (presumably, it requires registration and a download, so I haven't listened to it) the 9 minute BBC Radio interview. It's a reliable source, and may be used within the constraints on primary sources, but as nom has already explained, does not contribute to notability (see also "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" in WP:BAND).

Proponents of keep have asserted the existence of significant third party news coverage without identifying any actual sources. The closest I see is [1], but that's a passing mention of the group in a press release by the organizers of the festival at which they were playing. It is not "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - According to WP:BAND - Musical ensembles or bands may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria:

1.) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

2.) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

3.) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

4.) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)

7.) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

8.) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

9.) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

10.)Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

11.)Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

12.)Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Labbayk has met many of the above criteria, especially numbers 1, 4 and 12. Significant coverage of Labbayk, and/or members of Labbayk, by reliable independent sources includes coverage in UK Channel 4, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 4, Kuwait News Agency and Muslimness Blog. Liberty Pedia (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #12? No, no, and no.

4thought.tv [2] on Channel 4 in the UK is a short film format in which a single speaker, in this case the leader of the band, gives their personal views on religion. It is a primary source, Masum in Masum's words, not independent coverage.
BBC Asian Network [3] is a radio interview. Again it's Masum in Masum's words, a primary source, and specifically excluded from consideration of notability by the first bullet point under criterion #1 of WP:BAND.
BBC Radio 4 [4] contains only about a minute and a half, starting at 18:30 minutes in, of Masum. He speaks briefly with the interviewer about nasheeds. He mentions in passing that his band exists and plays nasheeds, but the piece is not significant coverage of Labbayk (or of Masum).
Kuwait News Agency [5] is a press release from the organization employing Labbayk to play at their event, so not independent.
Muslimness Blog is a group blog that "work[s] with brilliant media groups" and whose motto is "shameless promotion". It is not in any way shape or form a reliable source.

--Worldbruce (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All these bullet points by Worldbruce prove that Labbayk has met criterion number 12 of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 criteria.

Another important point to remember is that Labbayk never performed in Kuwait.
Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi.
The BBC Radio 4 coverage is important because it shows how ISIS (Daesh) and other extremists used the music of Labbayk, as well as the music of other groups, in their propaganda materials without ever paying any royalties and in complete violation of the copyright. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I spent some time evaluating notability of the subject. I have this gut feeling that they should be notable. The problem is, this gut feeling is not backed by any evidence. I cannot say Labbayk clearly pass any of the WP:BAND criterion; while they come very close to passing some of them. If deleted, which is more likely outcome, please also protect, so that next time we see this article is recreated again, that happens through AfC. --nafSadh ^{did say}

If one reads the article thoroughly and checks all the references, as well as the websites and links that the references lead to thoroughly, then one will come to the conclusion that this band meets multiple criteria of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 WP:BAND criteria. As the discussion for deletion above shows, this article should not be deleted. Instead it should be expanded and improved. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is after doing exactly that. The thing is, it doesn't pass any of those 12 criteria. Only you are saying it passes few of them, other editors disagrees. My gut feeling is to keep, but reasoning says delete. --nafSadh ^{did say} 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens to the band, the albums need to go: delete the albums for lack of coverage (and for being spamlink reservoirs). Drmies (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 4 albums and the band. Problem is that the sources are largely from non-notable publications and are often promoting an event, not discussing the band in a significant way. Even the few better sourced, such as Kuwait News Agency, mentions the band in an article about a topic: Muslims in Switzerland rise up against islamophobia. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BAND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is independent, significant coverage of this topic, see the book that was added, for example. Leo1pard (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo1pard: You didn't add any content to Labbayk when you added the "independent book" as a source. Have you read the book? Can you provide a relevant quote from it?

When evaluating the reliability of a book, the guidelines tell us to consider three things: the book itself, the publisher, and the author. No library in the world seems to hold a copy of the book. This often means that professional librarians do not regard it as a reputable source. The only listing I see for it is on Amazon,[6] where no publisher or year of publication is identified. It's a print-on-demand book, which often indicates a self-published source. The author, Russell Jesse, is not an acknowledged expert on British Bangladeshi bands, Islamic music, or anything else. If we examine what else he has authored on Amazon, we find Clenbuterol,[7] Samsung SGH-D600,[8] Vaimanika Shastra,[9] and many other diverse titles. These examples are published by Bookvika Publishing, which according to this complaint merely copies and pastes from Wikipedia. If the same is true of his Labbayk Nasheeds title, then it's a circular source, and not reliable at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You mean this book, with the publisher "Book on Demand Pod" (POD = Print on Demand) - a WP:SPS which seems unavailable for sale (at least online)? That would not account for independent reliable coverage (if this book exists at all - it might just be a reserved ISBN). @Leo1pard: - do you have a copy of this book on hand? Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce and Icewhiz: I don't have the copy on hand, but I know that this isn't the only link for the book that I've seen. Another one exhibits details like the date being January 2013. Leo1pard (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a copy on hand (and haven't verified the contents, reliability, or even existence) - you shouldn't be citing it. Beyond being self published (clear from the named publisher - "Book on Demand Pod") - there's a good chance (since it seems impossible to actually purchase this, isn't on google books, lack of other on-line content around this book) - this is just a reserved ISBN. Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

books that cannot be found, whether self-published, or produced by a group or organization, are not reliable sources or useful to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a source you haven't examined is risky, one might go so far as to say foolhardy. There are strong indications that the "book" is merely a copy of Wikipedia (the date of January 2013, which you don't say where you saw, is consistent with this, as the Labbayk deleted in October 2013 was created in June 2012). We can't say for certain because no one has seen the book. It may, as Icewhiz suggests, never have been printed. Or it could be about nasheeds that mention Labbayk or other Hajj-related terms, and nothing at all to do with the British band. I encourage you to reconsider your keep recommendation. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:23, 22 October 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.

[1] ttp://www.facebook.com/labbayk/

[2] ttp://twitter.com/labbayknasheeds?lang=en

[3] ttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7oYY3yXJKw7ZU7ORlNOF2A

[1]

[2]

[3]