Talk:Foghorn Stringband/Archive 1

Archive 1

New page July 17th, 2011: In process

This talk page is being developed in advance due to the previous deletion of the page, years ago, probably based on lack of proper WP policy compliance. In the extremely unlikely event that anyone actually thinks that this page should be SPOD'd at this point in time, please userfy to my talkpages WITH this talkpage. Thanks. Note: I have no connection to the band financially or otherwise in fact don't even live in the same state.

COI disclaimer

I have heard them perform on numerous occasions but then that is not a disqualifier. GeoBard^Rap 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability attestation:

• Foghorn Stringband makes the music their own with instrumental virtuosity and intense dedication to the sources. Old Time Herald

• "Foghorn Stringband plays a blend of high-spirited Appalachian dance music tying in sounds of traditional mountain fiddle tunes." Willamette Weekly (Portland Oregon weekly)|Also published at

• "Foghorn Stringband stands at the top of today’s vibrant old-time music revival. They delve deep into the tradition, but are still propelled by an undercurrent of modern punk energy" WAMU's Bluegrass Country is member-supported public radio.

• Foghorn Stringband

The sound of Portland, Oregon's Foghorn Stringband could have come barreling through the grille-cloth of those big console radios in the living rooms of the 1950's, when the traditional sounds of rural America were still on the minds of young musicians transferring the old-time music to a distinctively modern age. Their tight instrumental work and line-up - fiddle, banjo, mandolin, bass and guitar - is reminiscent of early bluegrass, but their powerful approach is whole-heartedly old-time, centered largely by the fiddle. Foghorn Stringband plays old time string band music deeply rooted in the American folk tradition, but the Foghorns put their own stamp on it. Stephen "Sammy" Lind's fiddle and Caleb Klauder's mandolin play tight unison lead lines supported by the Rev. P.T. Grover, Jr.'s three-finger banjo picking and anchored by the bedrock rhythms of Kevin Sandri's rhythm guitar and the bass of Brian Bagdonas.

The Foghorns came to Portland from all over the country and, while a few of them had traditional music in their background, most of them were rockers, attracted to old time music by its accessibility and communal spirit. Foghorn Stringband came together naturally when they met at the National Fiddle Championships in Weiser, Idaho, which remains one of their favorite places to play. The band's sound evolved slowly, out of the determination to not have a sound

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)

Noting the highly unorthodox method of starting the talk page first, to prevent the talk page of a non-existent article from being deleted, I've supplied the draft of an article I started that will need expansion and referencing. Also, here is the text of the previous version:

The Foghorn Stringband is a modern, traditional old time string band from Portland, Oregon. They are at the forefront of the old time revival scene in the Northwest and continue to inspire the next generation of old time musicians.

The instrument setup is fiddle, mandolin, guitar, banjo, and upright bass.

They all met up at a fiddlers convention in Weiser, Idaho seven years ago. Foghorn is claimed to be one of the most inspiring new old time bands, with a three finger banjo, tight melodies, and vocal harmonies. They are known throught the enitre U.S. and are stirring a lot of attention in Ireland.

Most likely the article was deleted because it didn't show notability per WP:BAND (not to mention the misspellings, which though not deletion criteria, don't help it look good for as far as keeping it is concerned), but it should be easy enough to take care of that. No need to do all the justification here--the items that satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND simply need to be cited in the article. I hope this helps. Valfontis (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this article safe yet or can some jerk delete it? 01:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those jerks, and yes, unless this article addresses the notability issue, it is possible it would be deleted, though I would contest a prod or a speedy pending research on further sources. I would understand completely if someone then chose to take the article to AfD, where the larger community can weigh in on the article. I'd suggest rather than asking so many people to "protect" the article I started, your time would be better spent finding some sources. Valfontis (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply re "I'm one of those jerks...the article I started"

Gosh I was going to thank you for providing so many notability reference points for notability, but your comment seems perplexing.

For one thing, if you read carefully, you would have noticed that I was going offlilne. You taunt that I should have added notability references rather than invite Oregon editor whom I had some confidence in to look after things in my absence. There is nothing wrong with that and it is not your affair to try to put some sort of trip on me about it. How am I supposed to edit wikipedia if I am not anywhere near a computer?

Yes, there are "jerks" on Wikipedia, a point formally acknowledged in, for instance, WP:DICK, but it is not necessary to assert that you are one of them. I certainly did not think you were, but yes there are admins who have been stripped of adminship and some have even gone off and created all sorts of anti-wikipedia sites, so they are not sacred cows. I did not think you were an admin, who can delete, nor someone eager to sponsor an afd for an article that you "started". You sound like you are tempted to sponsor or support an afd for this article based on notability. Well I started Talk:Foghorn Stringband and to my surprise you picked it up on Recent Changes and pasted in a draft you had. I thought this was a classic cool example of cool collaboration, but it seems that now we have a cross mood as you defend those "jerks" who loooove so much to delete and destroy other people's labor of love. Well I suppose that is what I get for suggesting that any class of wikipedians' are "jerks". I've really had enough of this kind of discussion so why don't we just let it drop.

• Reference

When in doubt don't delete

Notability

Here is what is at issue in terms of notability:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles Shortcuts: WP:BAND WP:MUSICBIO

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]

Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

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.[note 4]

Has released two or more albums on a major 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 notable).

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

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.

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

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

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 WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.

Foghorn notability

Are they not the paramount exemplar of OT in the PDX metro area? I don't see notability as an issue, whatsoever. GeoBard^Rap 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit tl;dr (too long, don't have time to read) for me at the moment, but in a nutshell, since I wrote the above post, as I detailed on my talk page, I think I have satisfied WP:BAND. I now am removing the article from my watchlist and will no longer interfere in its editing. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have time to build a new specific info box please do so otherwise cease and desist

There is no legal basis as far as I know, in WP policies, nor was one cited in the removal of the Old Time music infobox. Background infoboxes are actually better than mere links because (1) they print and (2) they can be viewed on line without clicking through, allowing, for instance, compare and contrast. Many projects have info boxes and as far as I know no one cited any policy to the contrary. See for instance how [[1]] uses a background infobox...it is my understanding that the deleting editor has stated that he is not going to be editing on this article going forward, and if the idea of "editing" is to remove valid, pertinent content based upon nebulous personal viewpoint, please honor that assertion and do not remove a perfectly valid infobox without replacing it with something more specific.GeoBard^Rap 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Easy on the redlinks please

The best way to propose new article ideas is on this page or on the new page requests page. A bunch of red links looks bad and turns readers off. IMHO GeoBard^Rap 16:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)