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.
This article, while well written and full of inline citations, nonetheless fails
WP:BAND and
WP:GNG. Checking through the references, they are all either trivial coverage (i.e. mentions), or not independent, or are supporting assertions that do not establish notability (e.g. regional tours or songs charting on charts not considered suitable for inclusion per
WP:CHART). UninvitedCompany03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Request for comment from user
UninvitedCompany as I'm getting bored of waiting for something to happen.
It seems to me that the subject clearly passes
WP:BANDHas 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 given as I've noted, the cited selections
Alternative Press(introductory profile)
Phoenix Times (full length feature),
Billboard (magazine)(introductory profile) and
BraveWords (full length news item)
Therefore I would ask UninvitedCompany (Steven) on what grounds he would still maintain that any or all of the above are trivial, unreliable, self-published or not independent of the band? Or is four simply not multiple enough?
If, bearing in mind what I've said, he no longer has any such objections, perhaps we should bring matters to a swifter conclusion rather than wait around for the next relisting.
Romomusicfan (
talk)
17:27, 31 December 2018 (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.
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.
This article, while well written and full of inline citations, nonetheless fails
WP:BAND and
WP:GNG. Checking through the references, they are all either trivial coverage (i.e. mentions), or not independent, or are supporting assertions that do not establish notability (e.g. regional tours or songs charting on charts not considered suitable for inclusion per
WP:CHART). UninvitedCompany03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Request for comment from user
UninvitedCompany as I'm getting bored of waiting for something to happen.
It seems to me that the subject clearly passes
WP:BANDHas 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 given as I've noted, the cited selections
Alternative Press(introductory profile)
Phoenix Times (full length feature),
Billboard (magazine)(introductory profile) and
BraveWords (full length news item)
Therefore I would ask UninvitedCompany (Steven) on what grounds he would still maintain that any or all of the above are trivial, unreliable, self-published or not independent of the band? Or is four simply not multiple enough?
If, bearing in mind what I've said, he no longer has any such objections, perhaps we should bring matters to a swifter conclusion rather than wait around for the next relisting.
Romomusicfan (
talk)
17:27, 31 December 2018 (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.