Talk:Viola Beach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notability[edit]

I don't mean to be crude, but have we just created this wiki page solely because the band died in the tragedy in Sweden? If they were not notable in life, there is no reason why this page should be considered notable in death 46.235.152.120 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, in life they fail WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Their death has run-og-the-mill coverage, and is the only thing covered in reliable sources. Thus, I don't believe that they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to that. Get rid of this crap from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.155.33 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look that way but there will be people who will look this group up on account of hearing about them in the news. I certainly did. Plus they may well be editors out there who where planning to create this page but were just waiting for the group to get a little more notable. We will never know now but it probable worth leaving this here for a little while just to see if they do become notable after death. For now R.I.P. Viola Beach. WyrmVane (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know there will be, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. The only coverage is of their deaths, which doesn't make them notable. All of the coverage is run-of-the-mill for any British people who die tragically abroad. It's a recentism, and eventually someone is going to get this article deleted. I'm only not doing it right now out of respect for them, RIP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The band may not have met the notability requirements yesterday, but now there are reliable sources providing ample material for a band biography. Some newspapers already have separate articles describing the band and their music - e.g., The Mirror, The Independent. There's plenty of material about the band available, independent of information about the crash. They are notable. Cmeiqnj (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cmeiqnj. Their sad deaths are the lead story on the Guardian website at the moment, so the band is evidently notable. Ericoides (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the coverage they have received about their deaths is enough to guarantee them notability under WP:BAND criteria #1 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Iwill re-edit the article to empahsise this in the first paragraph (Assertion of notability) and then tag the article as a stub. 2.26.165.64 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may not pass WP:Band but they pass the GNG. There is little chance the article will be deleted, and listing the news sources that reported on their deaths wouldn't help in the debate anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-crash coverage:

Fences&Windows 19:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison case: The New York Dolls after the death of Billy Murcia[edit]

Point of comparison - although they obviously went on to do other stuff to make themselves Wiki notable, The New York Dolls first bit of notability would have been the media fuss resulting from the death of their first drummer Billy Murcia. If Wikipedia had been around in late '72, that's when they would have got their article. 2.26.165.64 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a textbook case of WP:1E. Their deaths are the only thing generating this coverage. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to AFD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've been trying to tell people in my edit summaries, it's the coverage itself that makes them notable. Because of the media coverage, they do technically pass WP:BAND criteria #1 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. That's what's preventing the likes of you Ad Orientem from swooping in and pushing for deletion. 2.26.165.64 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just find some reviews of their work aND add them to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from last year Warrington band Viola Beach set to clean up at Reading and Leeds Festival Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And an interview with the Liverpool Echo from November. Cmeiqnj (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, I am seeing little coverage that would satisfy GNG (in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources) when you take out the 1E stuff. The first linked article above might qualify but the second looks pretty run of the mill to me. In addition we need to be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, there have been some cases where articles that were mostly generated by a single event passed, but those are, or should be, exceptions to the rule. This is a band that if not for the circumstances surrounding their death would likely be non-notable. Almost all of the coverage has been related to their deaths. The argument for notability here looks pretty weak. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate it for deletion if you like. I expect the discussion will be closed within the hour, and it won't have been deleted. I'm watching the BBC News channel right now, they're reporting that there's a campaign afoot to get one of their songs to number 1. Cmeiqnj (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Viola Beach should probably stay, as it will likely be relevant to several related, and admittedly morbid, categories - musicians that died young, britons that died abroad, and those that died in car incidents involving bridges.Waynehfitzgerald (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP 46.235.152.120 - come back in six months' time and nominate it for AfD if you feel the notability is just temporary. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter that the band are notable in death you cretins. If they're notable, then they're notable. Can't believe the idiocy of some of the contributors. If a man becomes notable for being the first to die from eating a McDonalds, then he's still notable. Duh! ...for what its worth, I hate this band. I think they're shit

AFD locuta est, causa finita est. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe some of the comments above. We get this every single time something of this nature happens. The sad circumstances surrounding this band have made them notable, and the article is duly warrented. Orphan Wiki 00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that the AfD has been closed anyway. Correct decision. Orphan Wiki 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: You shouldn't call people cretins, could be considered a personal attack. That said, people did get this wrong, most obviously me - wasn't expecting this much coverage. Sorry for any issues I caused by being too hasty. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Huh? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph's comment was reasonable and easy to understand, so do you want to elaborate with your response? Kookiethebird (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's quite confusing since I did not call anyone a cretin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't notable in life but are notable in death. In response to someone calling them shit, I think the song Cherry Vimto is a good quality song:

https://soundcloud.com/viola-beach

Kookiethebird (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two cases are very different. One member of the NYD died in the band's early days and was replaced, after which the band went on to be successful for years. All of VB's members were killed; they can't continue, let alone become successful. The only way they can become notable is if their music becomes successful after their deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, in my case I was making a general comment, rather than making any reference to the NYD. Kookiethebird (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria for WP:NBAND is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." That looks likely to be the case this Friday as they are already at #39 in the midweeks (based on only one day's sales). MFlet1 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discography?[edit]

Musical style etc.

Been added 2.26.165.64 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"clap for Craig"[edit]

So the ex-girlfriend of the manager asked people on Instagram to clap in minute 5 of a game. If people think this is worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article, I think maybe the whole topic of the article can't be that relevant. However, I removed the paragraph. --146.60.149.254 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it. The clapping has been widely reported so seems relevant. Cmeiqnj (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News report re. tanker[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12159860/Viola-Beach-massive-oil-tanker-sailed-through-wreckage-of-bands-wrecked-car.html Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added this, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV footage wiped and faulty (or turned off) warning lights[edit]

The reports about the CCTV are all over the UK tabloids - but we can't use any of those as WP:RS. However this ITV piece is supported by direct quotes from a named spokesman for Aftonbladet. The CCTV wipe also made BBC TV News last night, as did reports that the police took over an hour to respond. Admittedly, ITV does quote The Sun newspaper about: "pair of amber flashing signals 900 metres from the bridge - designed to warn drivers that it was being raised - were turned off". But I'm pretty sure all of this will have been reported in the Swedish press. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'spokesman' himself seems unsure. He cites a colleague: "The police cannot download any movie without us saving it and it has not been done, according to my colleague who has good insight into this". And this BBC piece from Thursday seems to contradict the claim about the faulty lights: "It's still not known why their car crashed on a bridge. It's been claimed there were safety barriers and warning lights in place." I think we need something more authoritative than the ITV piece, at least. Cmeiqnj (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the duty of care of any bridge operator to ensure that no cars are on the bridge before lifting any bridge regardless of what safety devices were working or not. Did the police drug test the bridge operator or ask him why did you not make sure there were no cars, will this simple question be asked and investigated.
While we have Law enforcement in Sweden, it's a bit sketchy about safety law, to say the least. Road signs in Sweden does show this sign for "Light signals at opening or swing bridges, ferries, airfields, emergency service stations etc." It might be useful to add what is definitely known about protection measures in place on the bridge, if suitable WP:RS can be found. But without knowing more about how the accident occurred, an such additions might be resisted as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source on recording of Swings & Waterslides[edit]

May be of some use, quotes a music producer saying they put out the single on their own label and it is "essentially an unsigned track" http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/news/14290054.How_Viola_Beach_took_on_the_music_industry_after_self_funding_their_debut_single__Swings_and_Waterslides/ Cmeiqnj (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another good source, in the NME : [1]. There's a quote at the bottom from their agent on a possible future album release. Cmeiqnj (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the crash[edit]

This piece from an English-language Swedish website contradicts a couple of things that we've currently got in the article. It quotes the police officer leading the investigation. He says: "We have been able to see that the car braked before reaching the bridge." We're currently saying "Witnesses said the car's brake lights had not been operated, suggesting that the driver had not realised the bridge had opened." This now seems misleading. The piece also says "Berglund said he did not believe that the vessel, which likely ended up sailing right above the wreckage on its way to Södertälje, had contributed to the damages to the car or the band members' fatal injuries." Our version seems to imply the opposite. Perhaps we should avoid mentioning these details at all for now, and just cite an up-to-date report. Any thoughts? Cmeiqnj (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the brakes - I was assuming that a BBC News report would, by now, be reliable. But, of course, witness evidence that they "did not see something" is hardly conclusive. Perhaps recent Swedish sources could be added to clarify. I see no problem with adding the police office quote to balance the BBC claim. Re: the ship - I think that statement from Berglund should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bit about witness reports about brake lights, and the bit about the tanker. I'm not sure it's useful to try to "balance" conflicting claims: if we're quoting two potentially unreliable sources of information then we're not really balancing anything, we're just reproducing two questionable claims. And there have been lots of questionable details in the press; I don't see that there's any value in reproducing them all here. I've added a quote from Berglund stating "Right now there is no hypothesis." This seems like the most pertinent fact available at present. Cmeiqnj (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised. The tanker details seem like a fact and the Berglund quote about it perfectly reasonable. People would otherwise be left wondering why the captain of the ship did not report it - he was potentially the first witness. I tend to agree with you about the brake lights, as statements seem to directly conflict. The same goes for the warning lights on the bridge itself, and the details about the CCTV. (As for "no hypothesis", I would have thought one contributory factor is that drivers from the UK, especially young drivers, simply do not experience opening bridges of this type very often). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe readers would wonder that, I don't know. Actually, the first witnesses were the drivers of the other cars waiting in line behind the barrier. The BBC published a video with eyewitness testimony from one of these drivers who says he saw a car that "smashed the side of" a taxi waiting in front of him. The question is: how much of this sort of reporting should we include in the article? It seems to me that the salient facts, at present, are that 1) the car drove off the bridge, and 2) we don't know why that happened. That's the information that I think I'd be looking for, as a reader. My thinking re the tanker is: if the police don't think it's relevant, then why bother mentioning it here at all? That said, I don't have a strong opinion on keeping it out. If you want to add the tanker back in then I don't mind. I just don't see the value in it, personally - to me, Berglund's quote seems to relegate the presence of the tanker from potentially salient fact to merely incidental fact.
Also, incidentally, there's something odd about that quote we had about the captain thinking the car was a large mass of snow falling off the bridge: if it was falling snow then it would have fallen vertically, whereas the car presumably fell in a parabolic arc. What sort of snow did he think he was dealing with, exactly? That quote seemed to raise more questions than answers. Cmeiqnj (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, intriguing isn't it. Nissan Qashqai-shaped snow, I guess. I'm not sure how far away the ship was when the car pluged over the side of the bridge. I just thought the captain was probably the only person to have seen that. Your reasoning over what to include at this stage seems eminently sound, although I must admit that I thought the make, model and colour of the car was a "salient fact." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, it's not clear how far away the boat was. I just checked that Telegraph source again and to be fair to the captain he didn't mention seeing the car falling (I must have imagined that bit), he said he saw it floating in the water. Which would suggest that the boat must have been at least some distance away when the car entered the water. Anyway, it's all rather unclear. Feel free to edit as you see fit. I didn't deliberately remove the model of the car - that detail just happened to be attached to the sentence about the tanker. Cmeiqnj (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a report from the inquest [2], states: "The vehicle carrying the aforementioned occupants has collided with the barrier and passed through the restricted area towards the raising bridge. The vehicle then collided with the raising bridge causing severe injuries to the occupants of the vehicle before falling off the bridge into the canal below." Cmeiqnj (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems clear and unambiguous. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A report out today from the Daily Telegraph is likely to put the cat among the pigeons. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article quotes two official sources:
"The driver overtook parked vehicles, using an off-limits part of the bridge,” explained Kjell Lindgren from the Stockholm Police. “It’s not natural to carry on driving if there’s a stop sign, parked cars and blinking red lights."
and
"Lars Berglund, who is leading the Swedish police’s investigation into the accident, told Aftonbladet that he now believed that most, if not all, of the band members had been killed at the point when their hired Nissan collided with the bridge."
But it's not immediately clear who has drawn the conclusion that the driver "probably acted intentionally". Was this just the newspaper, Sweden’s Aftonbladet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet is the same newspaper that previously reported that the cctv footage had been deleted, and that the police had not requested it.[3] They're now reporting that the police believe the crash was deliberate, based on the same footage? Is this really a reliable source? I agree with Martinevans here, we should be cautious about including this. Cmeiqnj (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this from the BBC: "Swedish police say they do not believe the Viola Beach crash driver "intended to kill himself or the band". ... Lars Berglund said the driver's "only intention was to avoid a crash"." Cmeiqnj (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation is an ongoing affair and new information and new conclusions appear as it progresses. Old newspaper articles fast becomes obsolete. Yesterday it was published that Lars Berglund, polisens förundersökningsledare i utredningen (head of the Swedish police investigation) was quoted saying "– Vi kan inte hitta någon yttre förklaring, säger Lars Berglund.– Det ser ut som att föraren handlat medvetet." which in English translates to "We cannot find any external explanation, says Lars Berglund - It looks like the driver acted consciously." Which also can be rewritten that the driver acted on purpose. This article does not give any speculations as to why the driver might have acted on purpose. Quotes is from the newspaper article: Johan Stambro; Niklas Svahn (2016-03-10). "Så körde popbandet mot döden på bron" (in Swedish). Aftonbladet. Retrieved 11 March 2016. The article also has descriptions of the crash. ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle ✉ post 15:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased in infobox[edit]

Do we really need to say this? Articles like The Beatles and Thin Lizzy (of which some members are now deceased) certainly don't. This is Paul (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think we do as it is due to their deaths that the band is no more. Maybe not so much for the Beatles as all members were alive at the time of their break up (Stuart Sutcliffe maybe as his death was the reason he was no longer in the band). Thin Lizzy may benefit as it would clearly show which members are deceased and why they are no longer in the group. Cexycy (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see any guidance on this in past_members at Template:Infobox musical artist. There's a similar situation over at Mamonas Assassinas. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They too should have the same treatment, many other articles feature it. The information is correct. Cexycy (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many others - I wonder could you provide few examples? As there is no clear guidance, it's hard to say definitively what is "correct", so I think we'll have to reply on local consensus here. But a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox musical artist might be a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese article on Mamonas Assassinas lists them as deceased in this way, only they use a cross sign instead, same for a few difference language versions of Viola Beach as well! At least the word "deceased" makes it all clear, since the cross or dagger sign can often be used for footnotes. 11:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist, this field is for "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names." (emphasis added). - SummerPhDv2.0 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images nominated for deletion at commons[edit]

Somebody (a brand new account SplammySquared (talk · contribs)) uploaded two images of the band to commons. I have nominated these for deletion as it is not clear that the uploader is the copyright holder. See here and here for the deletion pages. Cmeiqnj (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page at risk of being deleted at Italian wiki[edit]

There's an ongoing vote at the Italian wiki at it:Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Viola_Beach. It looks like the page there is on course to be deleted. The vote closes Tuesday at 23:59 CET. I tried to provide evidence of the encyclopedia-worthiness of the page but I don't speak any Italian so can't really make the case. Perhaps someone watching here will be able to offer something to the discussion. (Note that you are not allowed to vote there unless your account had already made more than 50 edits on the Italian wiki prior to the page being nominated for deletion.) There have been deletion discussions in five languages; the page has survived at the German, Polish, and French wikis, as well as here on en. Cmeiqnj (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted it. Disappointing. I note, though, there are now 11 versions in other languages, including a Catalan version that somebody started a few hours ago. Cmeiqnj (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture contains an old band lineup[edit]

The current picture on the article contains an old lineup of the band, with only two of the four later band members in it. The lineup changed a while back, as they brought in River Reeves and Thomas Lowe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.108.17 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct, the image was not the final line up. Looks like the caption was changed to 2016 based on the copyright soon after the image was added to the page. So I have switched it with the album image and move that image down the page. WyrmVane (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viola Beach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five years on...[edit]

Here's a piece from the BBC marking the fifth anniversary of the crash. In addition, ITV has this and NME noted the anniversary as well. JezGrove (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viola_Beach&oldid=1210867838"