Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zûg

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Zûg}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Z%C3%BBg Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Zûg}})

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but then again, this article has already been deleted once before, five years ago, when the artist was using his full name – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Zugarramurdi. Not the easiest subject to search for under his new name, since the artist now lives in Germany, and "Zug" (without the unnecessary circumflex) is German for "train" and also the name of a town in Switzerland which happens to host an annual techno festival, which is the music genre that this DJ/producer plays. Nevertheless, I can't find anything more than the references already cited in the article, and none of them pass WP:RS: one webzine, one French website with the standard one-sentence press release and "listen to his new song streaming in the link below", and the rest are online record stores, and their reviews of the record that obviously they are trying to sell to the public. The article creator has stated elsewhere that they are the owner of Contumancia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=642925849]], which is the management agency for Zûg and other artists. They appear to be creating a walled garden of articles related to this artist, none of which are remotely notable and should be put up for deletion as well, but let's start here. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the name "Zûg" is written with the circumflex and not without it. It is not written or pronounced like the German world "Zug" or the city in Switzerland. If you search for "Zûg" on google you will have about 21.300 results related to the artist and also the search box will suggest all related searches like "Zûg - Algunos Sentimientos", "Zûg - EP 1", "Zûg - EP 2", "Zûg - EP 1 (PROS001)", "Zûg - Interstellar", there is also at least 4 videos in youtube published by external sources with more than 25k views and lots of comments from fans. This all proves that it does not fail WP:GNG. It also not fails WP:MUSICBIO because of the 3 previous publications of works on different record labels. Also does not fail to WP:CREATIVE since the recordings are regarded as important works of electronic music by the most expert voices on the genre. It also not fails WP:RS since the sources are absolutely reliable since all the people that buy records in all those shops around the world trusts on the reviews written by the experts. The experts would never write lies in their reviews because they will lose their credibility. And when at least 3 expert and independent reliable sources from different corners on the planet have compared the album with the most essential works on the genre, it only means that is relevant and reliable. Record stores are the most reliable sources on music because what they sell is music, so is their business to be experts and know about music, they will never state that an album is magnificent if they do not really think so. While magazines are not reliable sources since what they sell is advertisement and are influenced directly by money or deals, they are there to create hype.

The album 'Algunos Sentimientos' by Zûg has been compared to the most essential micro-house music ever written by most experts of electronic music 'connaisseurs' being the people behind the biggest record shops in the world who only write reviews of most notable music works and their reviews are hardly ever comparing recordings with the most essential records ever produced. If you read many reviews from Amoeba Music in the U.S. and Juno Records in the U.K., you will see that they are almost never comparing records with the most essential records ever published. When the most discerning and knowledgeable people in the world on the subject state publicly that they are impressed by the works of a musician and draw comparisons with the most notable pieces of music of the genre ever written on the history of electronic music, it can only mean that the music is truly relevant, thus should be included in Wikipedia, knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has from the real experts on the subject. It should be more relevant, an artist with only 1 or 2 really good records, than an artist with a dozen not that good records.

Lagasta (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC) {{article creator|type=AfD|Lagasta}}

:Lagasta, I mentioned "Zug" without a circumflex because it's a viable alternative search term for this artist – in fact, the Juno Records and Amoeba Records websites that you quote and have used as sources in the article both spell his name without the circumflex on their websites [https://www.juno.co.uk/products/zug-algunos-sentimientos-part-1/712033-01/], [https://www.amoeba.com/algunos-sentimientos-pt-1-12-zug/albums/4130277/]. I am just saying that although it is clearly a viable alternative search title, the fact it has various meanings in German just makes it harder to use as a search term. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

:Richard3120, That is because the server from those websites does not allow special characters as Wikipedia or Discogs do. But we know they are talking about Zûg (Musician) or Zûg (DJ). If your search term requires a special character you need to type it, in order to get the right results. Lagasta (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject falls short of notability guidelines by a country mile; I don't have anything to add to the nom. As far as the arguments for keeping it listed above by the article's creator go, using the fact that this DJ has videos about him on YouTube with 25k views and "lots of comments from fans" to try to advance notability is ridiculous, and implicitly attests to how far away from notability guidelines this subject is. They throw out completely unsourced claims that the most discerning, expert minds in the music industry are praising this DJ's work as "magnificent", and they go on to argue that Zûg should be included, "knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has", which is patent whataboutism. I don't think I need to point this out, but literally nothing in that impassioned prose about this subject's notability holds up to any actual scrutiny. Comment: Algunos Sentimientos should be looked into for nomination as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::{{re|TheTechnician27}} you see now from the length of this argument why I felt it would be best not to bundle the song into this nomination for now... Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

:::{{re|Richard3120}} Yeah, I uh... Probably should have seen that coming, in retrospect. Sorry about that. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

:TheTechnician27, the General notability guidelines state that reliable sources address the topic directly and in detail like Amoeba Music, Juno Records and Phonica Records has with Algunos Sentimientos. Amoeba Music is the voice of experience in music and they explain [https://www.amoeba.com/algunos-sentimientos-pt-1-12-zug/albums/4130277/] in detail why the music written by Zûg in (Algunos Sentimientos) is magnificent or magic. And that falls short for a trivial mention. They address the topic directly and in detail. That is why it complies with Wikipedias General notability guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline]. Same as the words by Juno Records in the U.K. Lagasta (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::So in order, we have the website of a chain of California music stores, an online database of questionable notability, and I guess a London-based vinyl website. Even if we cast aside how notable these sources are, you claim that these sources address the subject in detail, yet combined, these three entries don't even amount to 300 words. What you seem to be caught up on is how the authors of these entries perceive the album; you keep focusing on how they call it, for example, "magnificent". But that's not the issue at hand; for all anyone here cares, these entries could call Zûg's work the best music ever, the worst music ever, or anything in-between. What matters is the sources themselves and how much coverage of the subject is given between them. Per WP:GNG, notability means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; < 300 words spread across three websites of questionable notability falls well short of guidelines. Ultimately, Wikipedia has to place a limit somewhere, else it just becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. For the case of recordings, that limit is WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. For all I know, more searching may turn up new sources that advance notability, but this is incredibly doubtful. Nonetheless, that kind of search is something for another day. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

:TheTechnician27, it feels like you are demeaning everything. You say about Juno Records that you guess is a London-based vinyl website, when there is even an article in Wikipedia talking about Juno Records which is the biggest online record shop in Europe specialized on electronic music. And you talk about Amoeba Music as a chain of record stores in California when anyone who has a bit of knowledge on music is aware that is the most respected record shop in the world with a youtube channel with 300k viewers. This records shops are the voice of experience. Through them goes all the electronic music on existence. If you have questions on electronic music you need to ask them. You obviously did not research enough on the sources at all. I think that when the most expert and relevant and trusted sources being Amoeba Music and Juno Records state individually that a piece of music is comparable to the most important works of music on a specific genre in all history of House Music only means that the article is relevant. And you can also trust that this Wikipedia inclusion will only happen today and only today. This is not happening every week or month or even year.Lagasta (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::"This records shops are the voice of experience." But they are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and no amount of argument is going to change that. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

:::Lard Almighty, If you know of some other entity as or more reliable on electronic music than Amoeba Music and Juno Records please tell us and case closed. Lagasta (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::::Case is closed. They are not reliable. You cannot rely on them per Wikipedia policy. Period. As the creator of the article, it is up to you to find sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. There are lots of reliable music industry publications out there (e.g. NME). Can you find a single one where Zûg has received coverage over a period of time? Lard Almighty (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::Lard Almighty, why you say that according to Wikipedia the sources Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable? Lagasta (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::Red reliable sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Lard Almighty, I did read reliable sources and there is nothing there to indicate me that Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable. Amoeba Music and Juno Records are third-party. Lagasta (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::::They are definitely questionable sources. Do they have reputation for fact checking for example? Do they have editorial oversight like a reliable newspaper does?

::::::::Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

::::::::Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

::::::: When millions of people around the world trust their judgment knowing that they only want to offer the best for the people, there is nothing to question. Is not politics, is music. They have also limited copies of the music so is not that they are lying because they want to sell the records, they only have few compies. They win very very little money. And normally there is no repress for this kind of editions. They are 1000 in existence (500 of each) plus 10 test pressings hand painted by the artist and some people pay up to 7 times the price [https://www.discogs.com/Z%C3%BBg-Algunos-Sentimientos/release/12352029] [https://www.discogs.com/Z%C3%BBg-Algunos-Sentimientos/release/12352078] [https://www.discogs.com/Z%C3%BBg-EP-1/release/11502958] from the regular edition. With their review, they are only doing their job. The job of a record shop is to offer the best they have on each genre from the music they get from different distributors. We are talking about underground electronic music, cult music. The editions of records are about 500 records. This is not mainstream. I will write in here soon an article for 'Contemporary Underground Electronic Music Movement' for you to understand more the situation. But first I hope you understand why the voice of Amoeba Music and Juno Records are the most reliable sources on contemporary underground electronic music. Lagasta (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::::: Magazines are like movies, movies of real life, they have all this characters to play with and tell the stories they want with them and what matters is how many cars they have or how much money or how cool they look. While the record stores like Amoeba Music only talk about the music, music for them is serious and is again the only thing that matters. What matters in the magazines is the pictures, cause is a print, there is no music on magazines. The music is in the record shops like Amoeba Music and they listen to music all day. Lagasta (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reliable sources that meet the guidelines for inclusion. {{U|Lagasta}}: I buy stuff from Juno all the time, and I love their DJ charts. I also once spent a small fortune in the Amoeba store in San Francisco - it was easily one of the best record shops I have ever been in. And I LOVE going in Phonica (despite the occasionally moody staff) and I've spent more in there than I'd care to remember over the years. But these are retailers, not journalists, and they do not meet the requirements to be classed as a reliable source. — sparklism ^hey! 13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

::::: I still think like many others that the record stores have THE word on the music. They own it. But if you want to put in front of them the magazine publications is up to you, but is not fair. Anyhow I will write the article talking about the electronic music culture in Berlin, I hope to find enough Reliable Sources to show that Berlin is the center in the world for underground electronic music. Is something it needs to be in Wikipedia for the world to know what's going on here in the capital of techno, and not written by some magazine but written by people that live and breath in the scene. Is like talking about the hip-hop in the Bronx back in the day. Is what's happening here, and is important for the history of electronic music. And of course, I will include Zûg and many other Producers DJs, record labels and independent distributors that are releasing all this cult music that is the electronic music of our times, 2019, 2002, and I am not talking about David Geta or all that commercial circus. I am talking about electronic music made by today's most talented electronic musicians creating music for cultured people. So if you want to delete Zûg's article now you can do it. But sooner or later the page will be here. So I want to propose to keep this article in Wikipedia until I finish writing the article on the electronic music scene in Berlin, capital of techno. Lagasta (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::There are articles on Berghain, Tresor and Matrix which have sources that can help with your proposed article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Autobiography of non notable musician. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promoting yourself. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Stores are not independent of the products they promote and sell. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, sources discussed above are not wikireliable as record stores are in the business of selling records, and may promote musicians on their websites accordingly (in a similar way, WP does not accept author/book reviews from bookstores as reliable, although people/customers in non-WP land may use such reviews in their reading/purchasing decisions). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.