Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume!

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume!

edit
Volume! (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)

Lack of reliable sources, length of article suggests undue weight to the topic, dubious notability, unsourced content and possible original research, appearance of advertising and possible conflict of interest given perusal of talk page and COI page. General inability to check sources in English language; no mention of this publication in the leading French news site France 24. There are low pageview counts at the French Wikipedia..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has already taken place… Elements from previous PROD discussion. Zamuse (talk)11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place…

Elements from previous PROD discussion
  • In the editorial board, which is online and in every single issue (18 of them up to now) of the paper version of the journal, and which you can fin online on our website volume.revues.org, there are scholars such as H. Becker, Simon Frith, A. Bennett, T. Gracyk, S. Whiteley, I. Inglis, B. Lebrun, S. Lacasse, A. Hennion, B. Péquignot… : these are major popular music studies scholars. Prof. Lebrun directed an issue f Volume ! on French Popular music. Prof. Sheila Whiteley, leading British scholar on the sixties, will be directing an issue on music and countercultures - the CFP is online all over the place. In France, Philippe Le Guern directed an issue, and he published a book with Simon Frith, one of the founders of PMS. We published a comparative sociology of popular music in France and Britain, which was published by Ashgate in England, by Hugh Dauncey and Ph. Le Guern. These are serious academics, who support the journal, some have directed issues, others have published articles in it, all have accepted to figure in our journal as members of the editorial board. It is not known enough, yet, in the US and the UK, because we are based in France and publish mainly in French.
  • Please check the list of articles published in English, here: http://volume.revues.org/2135
  • We work with the Cité de la Musique in Paris, a major concert hall, museum and documentation center dedicated to music, in Paris : http://www.citedelamusique.fr/francais/evenement.aspx?id=12751 We will be publishing the proceedings of that conference (not announced yet, but concluded).
  • We organized a conference at the Musée du Quai Branly, the Museum dedicated to so-called "arts premiers", created by Jacques Chirac : http://www.quaibranly.fr/fr/actualites/actualites-par-rubriques/actualites.html?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3501
  • We organized a conference two years ago in Bordeaux (cf. here: http://www.ades.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/Appel_journee_d_etude_musiques_noires.pdf, or here: http://www.cean.sciencespobordeaux.fr/lettre52.pdf).
  • Link to the ADES laboratory page mentioning the 2009 Bordeaux conference co-organized by Volume ! - another one here mentioning the round table with Philip Tagg the day before the conference.
  • Our publications are announced on the websites of the IASPM international, Canada (http://iaspm.ca/2010/08/volume-la-revue-des-musiques-populaires-la-reprise-covers/), France obviously (we publish articles they reward). Cf. also here on the IASPM site: http://www.iaspm.net/?p=486. Our recent "Nostalgia" cfp is quoted on many popular music studies site, such as the IASPM
  • HNET is an important online source (based at Michigan State University) for scholarly calls for papers, academic announcements etc. "H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web" (cf. here: http://www.h-net.org/) - this means that to publish information on their site, you submit for instance a CFP, they judge if it is relevant and so forth, then publish it.
  • On this specific page, the "metal studies bibliography" was actually done by K. Kahn-Harris and French scholar Fabien Hein, and first published in Volume ! n°5-2 (on metal music). If you follow the link, we are quoted on his site : http://www.keithkahnharris.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/metalstudies.htm ("I am indebted to Fabien Hein for alerting me to a number of these items. Together we published a version of this bibliography in Hein, F. and Kahn-Harris K. ‘Études Metal: Metal Studies: Une Bibliographe’ in Copyright Volume! 5/2 2006 19-32") - Copyright Volume ! being the first title of the publication, before it became simply "Volume !" in 2010 (issue n°7-1).
  • We work with the French branch of the IASPM: we publish the winner of their annual "young researcher" prize: http://iaspmfrancophone.online.fr/PrixJeuneChercheur/
  • And we are on Philip Tagg's database (just type "volume !" in the research bar) - we actually published a new translation of an important letter he wrote, organized a conference about that letter, and just published the selected papers of the conference in our 8-1 issue on "Black Music". :Cf. here: http://www.mollat.com/rendez-vous/en_presence_de_philip_tagg_et_denis_constant_martin-37124.html, here: http://calenda.revues.org/nouvelle12949.html, or here http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/04/13/musiques-de-couleur-64504-2780.php)
  • We have been accepted by two major French and Belgian online portals: Revues.org (http://www.openedition.org/9173) and Cairn.info (they work together). This means a committee of experts looked at the journal, asked specialists to judge its quality etc. before accepting it on the portals. Articles are online since September. These are two major portals of the French-speaking world - and it's too bad the American databases don't even consider anything in any other language than English as important.
  • Presentation on Entrevues, a site dedicated to cultural journals.
  • Overview of the journal in an interview with Emmanuel Parent. The RAMA is a regional institution that supports bands, associations, publications dealing with popular music.
  • IASPM website announcing our listening CFP.
  • Leeds Popular Cultures Research Network newsletter mentioning the countercultures CFP.
  • Neosphères site reviewing the latest issues of Volume. This site is edited by Eric Deshayes, a rock critic, who published several books on rock, the underground in France.
  • Place des revues the main French online catalog of academic journals, summarizes our editorial process etc.
  • Volume on Open Edition the site which hosts Revues.org
  • A link on the Music and Politics online academic journal.
  • A review on the Monde Diplomatique website. Prominent monthly newspaper on geopolitics. Belongs to the group Le Monde.
  • Philippe Le Guern's CV mentioning the Volume ! issues he edited etc.
  • RAMA presentation of Volume ! The RAMA is a regional network dedicated to promoting popular music in Aquitaine. It supports Volume ! and the Ed. Mélanie Seteun.

Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Perhaps it finally is time to try to get acquainted with WP guidelines and policies. From your above "elements", I choose just 2: 1/ having important people on your board is nice, but does not mean anything for notability. 2/ That someone mentions Volume! in his CV is, again, nice for you, but really, Really, REALLY doesn't say anything about whether this is notable or not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you select only two elements out of this list, to discredit my attempt to prove that Volume ! is, indeed, a notable peer-reviewed journal of popular music studies? There is a whole list there, with links to major institutions, museums and newspapers (CNL, CNRS, Musée du Quai Branly, Cité de la Musique, Place des Revues, Monde Diplomatique, Sud-Ouest). A good editorial board can eventually be a sign that the journal is respected. Major scholars who accept to add their name to an editorial board eventually do it because they have respect for that journal. Just a thought. It's someone else who had googled us who added those refs to personal bibliographies. Chill out, and try to be a little less arrogant. Our association has been working on Volume for 10 years now, ars artis gratia, and young researchers as well as major scholars from all around the world are acknowledging that work. Your snotty attitude is really out of place. -- Zamuse (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just took two because, frankly, I lack the courage to wade through all the other stuff. The discussion about editorial boards has been had multiple times at the WP Journals project. Notability is not inherited and editorial boards rarely have a more then ceremonial function. All kinds of other stuff you put in that huge post above are irrelevant (for example, in the light of the current discussion, who cares who has "created" the Musée du Quay de Branly? Or that you organized a meeting in Bordeaux?) I'll leave it up to people with more stamina than me to dive into all the other stuff. All I intended to show was that you seem to be clueless about how WP works. Why don't you start reading the links that have been given to you multiple times? And once you have spend a few hours to do so, you will know enough to be able to give us a few good references that are all we need to establish notability and we (including you yourself) can all save lots of time. And while you're reading WP guidelines, you should try WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, too. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see from the above, none of that helps meet the general notability requirements WP:GNG. If anything gives significant coverage in a reliable independent source; please show that source. I don't need a wall of links, just two or three of the best you have is sufficient. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New/reorganized refs. Please explain if you consider these references aren't relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
New/reorganized refs
Presence on two major French and Belgian online journals portals
Well, first of all, we are on Revues.org and Cairn.info - these are the equivalents in France and Belgium of Jstor, Muse and co. Revues.org is funded by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the EHESS, the Université de Provence and the Université d'Avignon. Cairn.info by major publishers: La Découverte, Belin, de Boeck, Erès. To be on such portals means a committee of scientific experts looked at our journal, its history, its publications, its editorial process, the authors published etc. to judge whether it was worthy enough to be part of these portals. These two portals host most of the online versions of major, historical French academic journals, such as Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, the Revue Française de Sociologie, Ethnologie Française, Terrain, Gradhiva etc. Volume! would never be on these two portals if it did not comply with the highest academic standards and requirements (peer-review process, international editorial board, major contributors, quality/originality of content etc.). We are thus also indexed on Isidore, the main French index for online academic articles, journals and so forth. This alone is enough to prove we are, at least in the eyes of French academic institutions, a notable academic journal.
Published authors
The list of authors who published articles in the journal, which is on the revues.org website, includes major, prominent popular music studies scholars, from all over the world. Please have a specialist judge this. Among them, just to name a few:
and so on… The list is here: http://volume.revues.org/33?lang=en
Our next two issues on countercultures will be edited by Prof. Sheila Whiteley - http://www.sheilawhiteley.co.uk/Sheila_Whiteley/Home.html, with articles by prominent popular music scholars: Prof. Andy Bennett - http://www.griffith.edu.au/humanities-languages/school-humanities/staff/prof-andy-bennett, Simon Warner (Lecturer at the University of Leeds) - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/srw/, Senior Lecturer Benjamin Halligan - http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/page/benjamin-halligan… Our issue on listening will be edited by Professor Antoine Hennion, head of research at the Ecole des Mines - http://www.mines-paristech.fr/cgi-bin/whoswho?Qid=683. The one on nostalgia will be co-edited by Senior Lecturer Hugh Dauncey (Newcastle University) - http://www.ncl.ac.uk/sml/staff/profile/hugh.dauncey/ and Chris Tinker, Reader in French at Heriot Watt University - http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/staff-directory/chris-tinker.htm. The links to the CFPs are above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I won't mention, again, the names we have in our editorial board, since, for some odd reason, it seems irrelevant…
We are now not only organizing conferences in universities (such as the Bordeaux one with Philip Tagg, or a forthcoming one in Strasbourg, with German partners and the French branch of the IASPM), but also events (conferences) with major institutions, such as the Musée du Quai Branly, the Cité de la Musique, the Bibliothèque Publique d'Information of the Georges Pompidou Center. Cf. the links above. We will be publishing the proceedings of a conference that was held by the Cité de la Musique on the question of the cultural heritage of rock'n'roll. We published the proceedings of the Bordeaux conference, which dealt with Philip Tagg's theorization of Black music, in our issue n°8-1.
The journal and the publishing association is supported by the Centre National du Livre, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The links to the documents attesting this are on the wiki page.
We work with the French-speaking branch of the IASPM (the international association dedicated to popular music studies): we publish the winner of their annual prize : http://iaspmfrancophone.online.fr/PrixJeuneChercheur/.
Scholarly papers mentioning Volume!
Three papers mention Volume! as a leader in the development of popular music studies in France:
  • Cécile Prévost-Thomas (2010), "Note de synthèse bibliographique: les nouvelles perspectives en sociologie de la musique", L'Année sociologique n°60, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 403-417. Her quote: " En dehors des nombreuses thèses et ouvrages dédiés à cette branche de la sociologie et des articles publiés dans des revues spécialisées […] notons qu’entre 1998 et 2008, plus de quinze numéros de revues scientifiques relevant du domaine des sciences humaines et dédiant chacun un dossier spécifique à la question musicale, ont tous inclus une ou plusieurs contributions de sociologues de la musique. Plus encore, d’autres revues centrées sur l’objet musical, telles Musurgia, ou Copyright Volume ! ont largement favorisé la publication d’écrits sociologiques sur la même période."
  • Philippe Le Guern (2007), "En arrière la musique! Sociologies des musiques populaires en France. La genèse d’un champ", Réseaux n°141, Paris: Hermès Éditions: 15-45. His quote: "A seulement quelques années de distance, les progrès accomplis dans ce domaine d’étude sont évidents : de nouvelles revues ont réussi à voir le jour et constituent des lieux d’expression appréciables, notamment pour les jeunes chercheurs qui peuvent y faire leurs premières armes, ou pour des auteurs étrangers peu ou mal connus en France - Footnote: On pense notamment à la revue Volume dont le premier numéro voit le jour en 2002 et qui a su accompagner la diversification des musiques actuelles."
  • Emmanuel Brandl (2006), "À propos des musiques populaires : le rock", Mouvements n° 47-48, 2006/5-6. His quote: "C’est donc à une nouvelle génération d’universitaires français que l’on doit aujourd’hui un effort de production et de publication de travaux de recherches en sciences sociales concernant ces musiques. Un certain nombre d’entre eux, regroupés autour des éditions Mélanie Séteun ont déjà assuré la publication d’une demi-douzaine d’ouvrages avec le soutien de l’IRMA et, depuis 2002, d’une revue biannuelle, Volume !".
This article of Le Mouvement Social (2011/3, n° 236, Paris, La Découverte) mentions Volume as a "pioneer" in research on popular music in France. The quote: "La précédente livraison du Mouvement social avait salué la naissance d’un séminaire interdisciplinaire consacré à l’histoire sociale du rock, signe d’un intérêt croissant de la recherche universitaire française pour un genre musical dont l’importance et l’impact au cours du dernier demi-siècle ne sauraient être sous-estimés. Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires , revue semestrielle de recherche fondée il y a une dizaine d’années, et qui a joué un rôle pionnier dans cette reconnaissance, prépare, dans une perspective proche, un numéro consacré au rock des sixties…"
Here are links to a few articles that quote Volume (or Copyright Volume, former title) articles, in the text, bibliography etc.:

2009/1-2 (n° 193-194), Paris, EHESS.

Hope this helps… Thanks Zamuse (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You really don't want to adapt to WP, but WP has to adapt to you, eh? All those links to homepages of researchers are irrelevant for the notability of this journal. You don't need tons of references, just a few good ones. And to understand what "good" means here, you really will have to get familiar with our policies/guidelines. If I would want to publish in your journal, I would have to adapt to your instructions for authors, too, wouldn't I? So just see WP's policies and guidelines as our "instructions for authors". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Guillaume, I really don't understand WHY you adopt this tone with me. I'm answering questions, giving links to the academic pages of people who published articles in Volume. This IS a proof of our notoriety. These scholars would not have submitted articles to Volume had they not considered it a serious journal in their field of research. A journal's notoriety is also determined by the content, who published articles in it. I do not see how this cannot be considered as relevant, when it comes to assessing the value of our journal. You were fed up with following this conversation: I'd appreciate it if you followed your instincts and let others deal with this issue. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I highly recommend that Zamuse should listen to Guillaume and the others here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added links to mentions of Volume in scholarly journals. Will listen to whoever gives good, courteous advice. Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems like Guillaume's advice is courteous and respectful and, more important, correct. Guillaume is trying to help save the Volume! article; at present, Zamuse, it seems like you are doing everything you can to hurt your article's chances for staying in Wikipedia. Can't you see this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guillaume is not being courteous (eh ? yup ? - very obnoxious), plus he selects the elements he wants to criticize, and just neglects all the other ones. I have added a good number of links to articles that mention Volume - three of them actually talk about the journal itself, the other ones refer to articles published in it… This should, I believe, help assess the journal's notability, no? Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guillaume understands the rules. You don't. He has been trying hard to tell you this. You don't seem to listen. Your addition of links has not been helping your cause. If you'd like the article Volume! to stay in Wikipedia, I urge you to listen carefully to what Guillaume is trying to tell you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will, and have: I just added the quotes of the articles mentioned earlier. Please explain why this is not considered as relevant. Thank you Zamuse (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zamuse, you did not listen. You add quotes and then you demand that we explain to you why those would not be sufficient. That's not the way it works. What you need to do is tell us which evidence among the big wall of text that you dumped here satisfies the notability requirements of [|[WP:NJournals]] or WP:GNG and why. Just two good independent reliable sources should be enough. quotes or a few citations to articles that appeared in the journal won't do it. And given the type quotes you just now added, you apparently still have not read any of the policies and guidelines that have been recommended to you. Apparently, you still think that "notability" is a synonym for "good", "valuable", "worthwhile", "important", etc. It is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You dumped here" - I mean, if that is not arrogant, if that does not explicitly show the contempt you have, a priori, for whatever evidence I have to propose…
1. I have quoted articles that speak about the state of popular music studies in France - that is their topic. And they do indeed mention Volume as one of the agents that developed popular music studies in France. They "address, directly, in detail" the subject of popular music studies in France: their current state, how they developed, where they come from. If you expect to find many online articles that are solely focused on one academic journal, good look to you.
2. They are reliable: published in other peer-reviewed journals, by "independent" authors not affiliated with Volume (one is, in fact, a member of the editorial board, but then again, that does not mean the author is biased, or involved in any "conflict of interest" when he decides to mention Volume in an article).
3. They are "secondary sources": they do not come from our website. I really have, I admit, a hard time understanding how these references are not notable, given they tackle the question at stake, they are reliable, independent, secondary sources…
On the "Notability (academic journals)", here are the criteria:
  • The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. I have given references assessing that.
  • The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Maybe not as frequently as 30 year-old academic journals, ok, but we're getting there.
  • The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history. Yes: there is no other academic journal, since "Vibrations", in France, exclusively dedicated to popular music studies. We offer a space for researchers to publish new, interesting articles on popular music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also gave links to articles in newspapers that talk about various issues of our journal - how are they not reliable or independent? Le Monde diplomatique, Ouest France are important French newspapers. How do these elements not comply with WP requirements? You haven't explained that - it seems you are blind to these references. I feel like my arguments bounce against hostile wall… Please take each example and criticize it, that's the only way I will be able to understand. But then again, the fact that the equivalent, for example, of the Nation (le Monde Diplomatique) in France does not impress you is understandable: but I cannot invent English sources. Please forgive the fact that the journal, for the moment, only gets attention from French national media… If you type "melanie seteun" (the publishing association) or "copyright volume" (former title of the journal), you get hundreds of responses on Google scholar… "Volume la revue des musiques populaires" gets 1200 answers on Google scholar. I do not believe in google scholar, but since you wanted some kind of an international index (such indexes are important in the Anglo-Saxon world, they do not really exist in the French-speaking one).
If you feel like deleting, in the end, be my guest. I will hardly find anything better than, yes, the prestige of our authors, of our editorial board, of scholarly articles that assess Volume's role in developing popular music studies in France, of the newspapers that reviewed recent issues of our journal, of the major online academic portals that decided we were an asset for them, of the major institutions that call us to organize conferences, debates on popular culture, rock'n'roll, Black music and so forth.
I work benevolently for this journal, it's not always easy, and yet it is getting growing interest in the English-speaking world and beyond (things I cannot prove on WP - the amount of proposals we receive in answer to our calls for papers, the prestige of the scholars who submit papers, who want to edit issues, who accept to review submissions, who contact us to organize international events). If WP accepts dozens of articles on tabloids and pokemons, but not a journal like Volume, that's fine. I really sense incredible hostility in the overly zealous scrutiny you impose upon a page that does not even say that much about the journal - nothing too laudatory, no unverifiable facts, no ambiguous falsifications… And still, I get "uh", "yup", "you dumped here", all these petty signs of contempt, when all I'm trying to do, is offer a young and long-lasting, independent, "do it yourself" and yet serious, scholarly initiative, a little more presence on the WWW.
Anyway, we're doing ok without WP, there's nothing dramatic. Thanks for the experience Zamuse (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable refs?
  • Comment I made a request for three or four reliable independent secondary sources that show significant coverage. The wall of links doesn't appear to have what I desired. Do those sources exist? Please do not respond with another wall of text, just a short answer showing 3 or 4 of the best sources. (trying to search for Volume! myself was problematic for obvious reasons, searching for "Volume! magazine" is also problematic because there are multiple magazines of the same name!) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Volume is a (scholarly) journal, not a magazine. If you type volume journal popular music, volume French journal, for example, or "volume la revue des musiques populaires" or just volume musiques populaires, volume revue, you find many links in the first page to our original website [www.seteun.net www.seteun.net], to the [volume.revues.org Revues.org] website, the Cairn.info website, and other sites (academia, facebook, twitter etc.), as well as to other sites that refer to us. This is complicated indeed, as there used to be, for a couple of years, a magazine called Volume, and there is a new one also called "volume" that deals with contemporary art and sound (revuevolume.fr). There is also a magazine dedicated to architecture… But once again, if you precise volume + journal/music/popular music/French, you easily find us on google.
Here is a (short, 8 refs only) list of newspapers and online magazines reviewing various recent issues of the journal:
  • The website "Entrevues", dedicated to journals and magazines dealing with culture, has a special page on Volume. So does Place des revues, the French online catalog of scholarly journals presents Volume.
  • The major Jazz webzine, Citizen Jazz presents our "Black music" issue.
  • Les Allumés du Jazz, the "jazzine" of the association of independent jazz labels published a long paper on our "Black music" issue - click on the cover of n°29, the latest issue. It downloads the pdf, and you will find the review by searching for "volume".
  • France Culture (main national public radio dedicated to the arts) reviewed our "cover versions" issue.
  • There is an abstract of a review published in Le Monde Diplomatique, reviewing our "postcolonial" issue.
  • Sud-Ouest, an important French newspaper, presents our latest issue dedicated to gender and racial issues in hip-hop. They had also reviewed our conference in Bordeaux on Black music.
  • There are links, on the Neospheres website, to reviews of both the "postcolonial" and "cover versions" issues.
Please explain if you consider these references aren't relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment: I suspect if Zamuse had left the article alone as a stub we would not be having this conversation. If I recall correctly, User:Guillaume2303 was satisified as long as the COI editing stopped. This made sense to me so I was satisfied. Zamuse's refusal to listen to good advice in the first place has landed the article here. Furthermore, I have communicated to Zamuse (and now to all of you) an alternative to the article which is a section in the article [[Music of France]. The link for the section is here.
    Also, I agree with IR Wolfie that a wall of links and other stuff is not helpful. I don't see how we can be expected to sift through all that stuff to prove Zamuse's opinion. However, just to be fair I now have a request. I am not literate in French. Below is are four references cited in this discussion by User:Zamuse. User:Guillaume2303 is literate in French. I am wondering if he would mind giving his opinion as to whether or not these provide sufficient coverage of this publication. Off hand these seem to be Zamuse's best chance.:
  • Cécile Prévost-Thomas (2010), "Note de synthèse bibliographique: les nouvelles perspectives en sociologie de la musique", L'Année sociologique n°60, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 403-417. Her quote: " En dehors des nombreuses thèses et ouvrages dédiés à cette branche de la sociologie et des articles publiés dans des revues spécialisées […] notons qu’entre 1998 et 2008, plus de quinze numéros de revues scientifiques relevant du domaine des sciences humaines et dédiant chacun un dossier spécifique à la question musicale, ont tous inclus une ou plusieurs contributions de sociologues de la musique. Plus encore, d’autres revues centrées sur l’objet musical, telles Musurgia, ou Copyright Volume ! ont largement favorisé la publication d’écrits sociologiques sur la même période."
  • Philippe Le Guern (2007), "En arrière la musique! Sociologies des musiques populaires en France. La genèse d’un champ", Réseaux n°141, Paris: Hermès Éditions: 15-45. His quote: "A seulement quelques années de distance, les progrès accomplis dans ce domaine d’étude sont évidents : de nouvelles revues ont réussi à voir le jour et constituent des lieux d’expression appréciables, notamment pour les jeunes chercheurs qui peuvent y faire leurs premières armes, ou pour des auteurs étrangers peu ou mal connus en France - Footnote: On pense notamment à la revue Volume dont le premier numéro voit le jour en 2002 et qui a su accompagner la diversification des musiques actuelles."
  • Emmanuel Brandl (2006), "À propos des musiques populaires : le rock", Mouvements n° 47-48, 2006/5-6. His quote: "C’est donc à une nouvelle génération d’universitaires français que l’on doit aujourd’hui un effort de production et de publication de travaux de recherches en sciences sociales concernant ces musiques. Un certain nombre d’entre eux, regroupés autour des éditions Mélanie Séteun ont déjà assuré la publication d’une demi-douzaine d’ouvrages avec le soutien de l’IRMA et, depuis 2002, d’une revue biannuelle, Volume !".
  • This article of Le Mouvement Social (2011/3, n° 236, Paris, La Découverte) mentions Volume as a "pioneer" in research on popular music in France. The quote: "La précédente livraison du Mouvement social avait salué la naissance d’un séminaire interdisciplinaire consacré à l’histoire sociale du rock, signe d’un intérêt croissant de la recherche universitaire française pour un genre musical dont l’importance et l’impact au cours du dernier demi-siècle ne sauraient être sous-estimés. Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires , revue semestrielle de recherche fondée il y a une dizaine d’années, et qui a joué un rôle pionnier dans cette reconnaissance, prépare, dans une perspective proche, un numéro consacré au rock des sixties…"
Steve Quinn (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I speak French, and from these passages these, if they can be taken at face value, would indeed indicate that Volume! is considered impactful and important. I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but from the sources alone, I would believe that Volume! is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also advise Zamuse to consult WP:JWG if they haven't already. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to leave the website alone - frankly, it's not like I have been adding false statements, anything ideological, any real judgment on the journal - the latest edit was on the forthcoming issues. If that needs to be taken out, no problem. Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To start, I think that redirecting this article to the section proposed by Steve is an excellent suggestion. And I salute his courage going through all the links that Zamuse has "dumped" on us. Yes, I choose that word deliberately, because it just looks like Zamuse is trying to swamp us under stuff so that nobody checks any more and supposes that somewhere in that huge amount there will be something showing notability. Well, to pick just two random ones again, one was a dead link, the other a list of publications of some researcher, not even mentioning this magazine. Anyway, I had a look at the 4 references selected by Steve and here is what I found:
    + Prévost-Thomas (2010) is behind a paywall and I cannot even access it from my university. the last phrase of the quote given says: "On top of that, other journals centered on the subject of music, such as Musurgia or Copyright Volume ! have stimulated the publication of sociological work on the same period". This seems to be an in-passing mention.
    + Le Guern (2007) mentions Volume ! twice: one is a citation to an article that was published in Volume !, the other is a footnote (cited above), which says: "One thinks in particular at the journal Volume ! of which the first issue was published in 2002 and which has succeeded in following the diversification of current music". Again, an in-passing mention.
    + Brandl (2006) mentions Volume ! twice. The quote concerns one, basically stating that the journal has been published biannually since 2002. The other mention is, in fact, more substantial and says: "The Editions Mélanie Séteun was established in 2002 and have become known by publishing the very first journal devoted to popular music". Nevertheless, barely more than an in-passing mention.
    + The fourth one (in Le Mouvement Social) is an announcement (one of several listed under "Informations et initiatives") that Volume ! is preparing a special issue on rock music from the sixties. Although it indeed says that this journal has played a pioneering role (in the re-evaluation of popular music in French academic research), the item (just a few lines) reads like something written by the editors of Volume ! themselves and is followed by two contacts, both persons involved with Volume!
    In conclusion, although notability seems to be tantalizingly close, I don't think that any of these four sources (nor the four taken together) actually do establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Guillaume, I have reduced the number of links to 7, up there. Le Monde Diplomatique and Sud-Ouest are important newspapers in France. France Culture is the major national cultural radio. Place des Revues and Entrevues are serious portals. The sites with lists of publications were found by Steve Quinn while browsing on Google, I just, stupidly I admit, pasted the list here. Now things are a little bit more organized. I gave the refs to the scholarly articles to show that we were indeed discussed. Above are links to reviews of various issues of the journal. You have not commented on those yet. Zamuse (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate these, if you are willing to trust me :) Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To be sure, most of the reasons asserted for keeping are irrational, or at least not relevant to Wikipedia. But none of the reasons originally given for deletion are relevant. The page views of an article here or on another WP bear no necessary relation to encyclopedic notability--we cover the more obscure areas also. There is no need for English sources to show notability. It is not necessary to be included in a popular national news site to be notable. Having COI, or some promotional content, or being over-long, or of merely dubious notability as distinct from non-notability, having some unsourced content, and lack of adequate references are also not reasons for deletion, but improvement.
    Guillaume's arguments of course deserve more attention, as the article does not seem at present to actually meet the standards for academic journals--though I would regard the presence of extremely important editors on the board as significant if they were truly active in the journal. For GNG, I consider that the long signed review in entrevues.org [1] is good evidence for notability, together with the note in Le Mouvement Social and the short notice in Le mode diplomatique" is acceptable as partial evidence for notability to be used for notability -- it specifically asserts the importance of the journal. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the editorial board, I can easily give yet another list of their publications in Volume. this page has links to the articles they published in Volume, and Prof. Whiteley, Inglis, Bennett, Julien, Fabiani, Hennion, Gracyk, Dauncey will soon be published in Volume (we already have received the submissions). The first five in the next two issues on "countercultures" (Whiteley being their guest-editor), the next two in the one on "listening", the last one will be guest-editor of the one on "nostalgia" (all the cfps are online, if you simply type "volume, call for papers, nostalgia/listening/countercultures"). Once again, these are major international popular music studies scholars - any specialist will attest this. It is tougher to prove they have reviewed articles for us - I swear most of them have, and others would be perfectly willing to do so. Zamuse (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion by Guillaume: "reads like something written by the editors of Volume ! themselves and is followed by two contacts, both persons involved with Volume !" amazes me - truly inquisitorial! We never sent Le Mouvement Social any text they should copy and paste in their columns. The two email addresses below are there because the article announces our cfp on countercultures. They aren't a signature of any sort. Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstracting & indexing I asked the person in charge of referencing at OpenEdition ("OpenEdition is the umbrella portal for Revues.org, Hypotheses and Calenda, three platforms dedicated to electronic resources in the humanities and social sciences", cf here), here is the list he provided, concerning the referencing of Volume!: "Cher ……… Je suis en charge du référencement des revues d'OpenEdition. Vous trouverez ci-dessous les bases des données qui référencent la revue Volume!
Volume can also be found on Isidore, JournalTOC, Base. Zamuse (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very sorry, but none of these are selective major databases. Some (Sudoc) are just library catalogs, others (Google Scholar, BASE, OAIster, Scirus, WorldCat, JournalTOCs) include everything that is published in their area. For yet others (Isidore) it is unclear whether they are selective, but they are certainly not "major". BiblioSHS is the online library access for CNRS academics working in the humanities. None of these contribute to notability. All of them are routinely removed from journal articles as being rather trivial stuffing (we don't mention either that information abotu a certain company can be found using Google, as Google indexes everything; similar for GScholar etc.) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Isidore is dedicated to "SHS" (sciences humaines et sociales) - humanities, social sciences, and it was created by the CNRS - which cannot be considered a "small player" in this field, and neither can EBSCO. It is quite difficult, for journals dealing with "arts", to find "selective" databases - they are usually part of "SHS". Scirus is a comprehensive tool, yes, which is not "stuffed" with anything-you-can-find data - and of course, as mentioned earlier, I do not expect Google scholar to prove anything… But I do get your point.
Concerning notability, you never acknowledged the value of articles and reviews in Le Monde Diplomatique, France Culture, Citizen Jazz, Sud-Ouest, Place des Revues. Please explain why these references should be considered relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! My colleague in charge of "communication" tells me we are "on the verge" of a deal with RILM, the main international music journals index, to be fully indexed on their site. Can't find anything more specialized than that. If you all are patient enough, the deal should be concluded within a couple of months. Best, Zamuse (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all good faith, I here is a quote from a recent email of the person in charge of new submissions: "We are very pleased you would like us to include the articles from Volume! in the RILM database. I will pass all the information about your website and the journal's articles that are accessible on-line, to our editors. As soon as I find out, I will write and let you know which issues they will need in print form."Zamuse (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And an answer from another major music index:
"Dear XXX, Thank you very much for contacting us about Volume! We would be very interested in indexing this journal for IIMP [International Index for Music Periodicals, which is part of the Music and Performing Arts Online database], as it would provide an excellent complement to other scholarly journals covering popular music. I am CCing XXX, our Supervising Editor for the Humanities, who will be able to give you more information about how the process would work.Best regards, XXX"
So, thanks to this debate, not only will Volume be indexed on RILM, but also IIMP! Thank you WP community!
Zamuse (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also forgot to mention that we are partially indexed on the International Association for the Study of Popular Music database created by Philip Tagg, a founder of the IASPM, whose famous "open letter on 'Black music', 'Afro-American music' and 'European music" we translated in Volume here, and with whom we organized our conference in Bordeaux, specifically on the influence of that letter in popular music studies.
Not everything is indexed on the database yet, as they have closed submissions for quite some time, but the process should resume some time before 2013. Once again, quite a specific database, and one that should prove notability, considering the importance of the IASPM in the popular music studies field. IASPM + RILM should be enough, I believe. Hope Guillaume will consider them notable - any scholar dealing with music studies will confirm that they are, even in a WP sense.
Best, Zamuse (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have struck my delete (see above) and changed to keep because this journal is a serious scholarly endeavor based on the information provided by Zamusec during this discussion and the previous one some months ago. I am looking at the aggregate of information. Furthermore, although the potential notability of the editors and editorial board are not technically a reason for a keep, in this instance I am allowing it to be a factor in weighing my decision. As expereince has shown, not all decisions pertaining to inclusion have a clear and defining demarcation. In addition, I do not consider the article to be too long or overly promotional. It seems to meet the standards that we have set for such an article, and more relevant information is welcome. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afd process

edit
  • AfD process - I am wondering if this AfD was set up correctly. The link in the AFD tag on the article is red-linked. It should be blue. Can someone make sure all the steps were followed? Hopefully an editor didn't just grab an AfD tag and post it on top of the article. I don't what the implications are, but there are steps to follow in order to intiate an AfD. Thanks ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I clicked on the XFD on Twinkle and figured that the software would do the steps right; but this is my first time ever initiating one so it is possible that I missed something. Initially I did a PROD of the article, but then I learned that it had been PROD-ded before, and therefore that the article Volume! was ineligible for a second proposed deletion via PROD.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen Twinkle do that, too. The link in the banner appears to be red, but is functional when you click it. Usually, this is transient and goes away after a while. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the discussion link in the template is often red for a short period of time after the AfD is created, as Guillaume2303 mentioned. Everyone who needed to be notified was, the template on the page looks good, and it was logged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 23. Unless I'm mistake, I think that means it all went through OK. OlYeller21Talktome 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Removal of the section heading appears to be causing confusion. In addition, I have moved two recent comments back up into the thread. This section is not part of the "keep" or "delete" conversation. This was a technical matter related to this AfD in a differnt way. Also, I am restoring the section heading. However, I acknowledge User:Uzma Gamal for a great job in cleaning up and organizing this AfD. Those collapsing boxes have been especially helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped improve the article, especially the relentless, inexorable Tom & Guillaume.
Best, Zamuse (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Volume!&oldid=1088287102"