Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The institution

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. ✗plicit 23:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The institution

[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)

Main body of the article is entirely self-sourced. Google search turns up nothing independent. Fails WP:NMUSIC Alyo (chat·edits) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, those 1960's interwebs haven't been digitized yet... Local garage band, hardly notable even these days. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- article creator left this comment on his talk page, which I'll link as his keep !vote. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
he provided links to TV shows he says he was on, we can't verify it happened. I still don't consider it coverage of the band, at best, it confirms the tv show happened. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the article's title is capitalized incorrectly, to get around this. If it is kept, the title should be moved to The Institution (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have perused the talk page discussion in which the article's creator, Tonytt, is absolutely working in good faith and wants to present valid info on this band. Tonytt has the stance of a historian, tracking down far-flung and obscure snippets of information to compile a story of an early band in which several interesting people got started. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which people/things must qualify for inclusion, and while some members of The Institution may qualify for things they did later, the band itself does not. They were purely local with little apparent influence at the time, and even the hardcopy books mentioned at Tonytt's talk page are about other things like TV shows on which the band briefly appeared. This is all a fascinating historical exercise, which can spruce up fansites and maybe even a feature magazine article somewhere, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Take a look at the Steel Mill entry. For much of their early existence there is very little solid sourcing, instead mostly there are fan sites such as brucebase, dead entries, tribute sites like Garry's Corner, mentions from an autobiography (an excellent one) by Bruce Springsteen who was a member of Steel Mill, making the reference self-sourced. To me, that is not crucial. What is most important about Steel Mill is the fact the several of its members went on to considerable success, including Bruce, Steve Van Zandt, Danny Federici, and that they opened for several well-known groups (which is apparently poorly sourced in the Steel Mill wikipedia entry), not that they were a significant or well-known band at the time, though there was a nice review of one performance in a local paper, as there were short, complimentary words in a letter in a local paper for The Institution. (Note that Steel Mill also played at a Thanksgiving event in 1970 with The Institution, mentioned on their tribute site in a flyer, and Steel Mill's presence on a fan chronology site.)

I strongly believe that there should be a Wikipedia entry for Steel Mill, to show how Bruce and the others got started, no matter how obscure these early groups were. They are an important part of rock history, as is the usually obscure role they played as an opening act. I also believe that The Institution played a similar, but less prominent role, giving a start to people like Joey Kramer, Rickie Rackin, J. Howard Duff, and Philip Rubin. I am fond of outsiders and underdogs, but feel that The Institution was more than this, playing a significant role in the rough and tumble, and usually obscure, early days of garage bands in New Jersey, opening for well known groups, appearing on important television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's, and nurturing key individuals, a couple of whom went on to considerably more prominence than most who were part of this scene. At the same time, I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and standards. I believe that in this instance, the difficulty of documentation from this era (for Steel Mill, The Institution, and many others bands), and the web of connections and verifiability of key individuals who were shaped by playing in this band, should be both important and mitigating factors when considering the deletion of this entry.

Thanks again for your patience in putting up with listening to my point of view on this. I think that is an important entry, if not a standard one, and hope that it will not be deleted from Wikipedia. It was an important part of this early history (at least in New Jersey and clubs in NYC) and will, unfortunately, disappear from history without such an entry on Wikipedia. I first ran across modern interest in the band around 2015 on a website called 60srockband.com. That site is now gone. Many of the links and sites on the Steel Mill site are gone. This history is disappearing. Wikipedia can, and should, help save it. Tonytt (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as the weaknesses of the Steel Mill article are not relevant for our current discussion about whether The Institution is notable. If the Steel Mill article needs improvement, or even if it deserves to be deleted, that can be handled as a separate matter by Wikipedia's volunteers. Once again, I think you are doing very interesting historical research, but you're putting it in an inappropriate forum. There is surely an interested readership for what you have found on The Institution, so consider submitting to NJ history publications or the like. Best regards, ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I won't get involved in the question of whether the article should be retained or deleted. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I applaud Tonytt for his interest, passion, and diligence--he should definitely write a book. I think that some of the material in this article, provided reliable sources can be found, could be used as background info. in articles about some of the later well-known acts whose members played in the Institution. And, if some of the Institution's recordings could find official release, that would be very helpful for establishing notability down the road. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. I would suggest Tonytt to find another WP:OUTLET, or even write a book to keep the history alive forever (even better). SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't enough independent, secondary, WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS on the band itself. Jacona (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2022 (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.