Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible (EP)

Possible (EP)

Possible (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I redirected this to Youth Brigade (Washington, D.C., band) as I can find no evidence of notability for this EP; but this was reverted, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  KEEP: I went and found several contemporary, positive reviews of the EP in notable punk rock publications and cited them in a new reception section I added. I also saw their connection to notable figures like producer Don Zientara and Ian MacKaye's Dischord Records, which I emphasized to support the EP's notability. Pvdc20 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  All these reviews appear to be in fanzines, not in reliable sources though? Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is a good question. Since we’re dealing with an article on an aspect of a subculture that was initially excluded from more institutionally reliable coverage, I don’t think it’s the usual cut and dried decision. While WP:SPS generally excludes any media lacking traditional editorial oversight, strictly applying this rule to the punk subculture (especially something from early in its history) unintentionally creates the systemic bias we're trying to avoid/correct on Wikipedia. Because the mainstream media and academia generally ignored the American punk subculture for years, fanzines serve as the only extant records of notable bands, venues, and commercial releases from the early years of the subculture. Excluding them outright effectively erases this history from the encyclopedia, running counter to Wikipedia's goal of preserving verifiable knowledge, which I know you’re giving your time in good faith to support.

  To factor this in, fanzines like the ones I cited here should be recognized under Wikipedia’s "established expert" exceptions and viewed through the lens of academic institutional authority. As documented in numerous scholarly works, fanzines like

  Maximumrocknroll

  ,

  OP

  , or

  The Big Takeover

  functioned as the definitive trade publications of their communities and their historical reliability is verified by their inclusion in major academic archives like those at Duke, Cornell, UCLA, and the University of Maryland (among many others). Rather than a flat ban, I think editors like us should employ what is basically a tiered approach – allowing historically preserved, scene-defining zines to legitimately verify aspects of the subculture, while still restricting un-archived, purely personal blogs or personal zines. What do you think?

  Pvdc20 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure what happened with my spacing there when I hit reply, but I think you should still get the point. Pvdc20 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's not really how it works though. These were a subculture because they had a limited (though fanatic) following, which also restricts their notabilty. Things which were subculture but had a large following (say, things like SF or comics) later all have had sufficient mainstream suorces to be considered notable, while the more minor aspects that only received fanzine attention have no place here. The same applies to something like punk music, there are countless bands and records which have later on received plenty of attention and get unchallenged articles here. This doesn't seem to apply to this EP though. It can be briefly covered in the article on the band of course, but to sustain a stand-alone article this seems insufficient. As for the "academic institutional authority", universities tend to have specialized libraries where they try to collect everything that was published on a topic, without thereby giving it a stamp of reliability. I'm more at home with comics fanzines than with punk fanzines, but while these often have interesting information, they also have many, many errors, mainly due to the amateur, rushed character of the publications, and the lack of scholarly sources to fall back on. Fram (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  The argument that universities 'try to collect everything that was published on a topic' without granting a stamp of reliability indicates a misunderstanding of how these collections (like those which collect fanzines and other punk archival materials) are curated. Academic institutions do not blindly collect every piece of paper ever printed on a topic they specialize in. They intentionally curate collections based on historical significance, cultural impact, and research value. When an academic archive at Duke, Iowa, Cornell, NYU, UCLA, etc. adds a specific fanzine to one of its archival special collections, they are establishing its status as a meaningful historical record of that era, not just grabbing anything they can get a hold of. This confers a level of reliability sufficient for when it's being used the way it is used in this article to cite critical response to the recording within the punk subculture -- a subculture that grew to become highly notable/influential within the world of popular music.

  Additionally, the assertion that "these were a subculture because they had a limited (though fanatic) following, which also restricts their notability" conflates popularity with notability. Per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." While you acknowledge that punk later grew in popularity to the point that it was covered more broadly in mainstream sources, I don't think that renders music from the earlier years -- when it was covered almost entirely by fanzines -- inherently not notable. Indeed, the group was notable enough during its own time that it was covered by multiple zines that have their own Wikipedia articles today, as reflected by all but one of these archival citations. Are we saying these publications are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles but aren't notable enough to cite?

  While it may be your anecdotal experience that fanzines include "many, many errors," there isn't scholarly research that I've ever seen indicating that's the case to a point that fanzines should be deemed unreliable as sources. I agree that your assertion does seem like the accepted wisdom on the matter, but having studied the subject, I have not seen any research to back up the notion that a single editor or a small group of writers/editors are universally incapable of creating a reliable, mistake-free publication, so I think it's worth challenging that assumption. (WP:5P5 and all)

  I don't anticipate this particular exchange resulting in consensus, but let's see if anyone else has thoughts or something to add? Pvdc20 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I was not stating (or meaning- that "later" punk music was more popular than "early" punk music, but that punk music got more recognition and mainstream sources in later years. 1981 isn't even early punk, the genre was already clearly past its peak by then. Fram (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep I believe that the changes made by Pvdc20 to this page, convince me that this EP should be on Wikipedia. VIV the star (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.