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.  Sandstein  12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Scruffy The Cat

Scruffy The Cat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Google news search brings up one recent article from the Boston Herald but that's all. Seems to fail WP:BAND Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep:Criteria #1 - the were written up in the Chicago Tribune (November 28, 1988, Chris Heim), in the Boston Globe (June 10, 2011, Jonathan Perry), and in the Philadelphia Inquirer (July 15, 1987, Robert Gordon). They were in the Rolling Stone 1987 "Back to School" fashion article- August 27, 1987, pg 180. Kevingt ( talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Kevingt ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep: Criteria #2, their album Tiny Days was a top 5 album in the college album charts and on several critics top 10 lists. Kevingt ( talk) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Kevingt ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment: Incorrect -- criterion #2 is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Critics' top ten lists (or the Rolling Stone "top ten college list", which it actually was) are very far away from being the official national chart. Ravenswing 07:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Struck duplicate !vote above. Only one !vote is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment:Correct -- Scruffy the Cat meets criterion #2. Their second LP "Moons of Jupiter" spent eight weeks on the Billboard 200 chart, peaking at number 177. This is the official national chart for albums. [1] Salemhistorian ( talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment:Correct -- Rolling Stone prints the Billboard national music chart information and the CMJ national college album chart information. In addition to them peaking at #177 as Salemhistorian pointed out, they were in the top 10 of CMJ's college album charts. CMJ (College Music Journal) is a national publication. Kevingt ( talk) 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment:Correct -- Their song "Moons of Jupiter" from the album Moons of Jupiter was #23 on Billboard's "Alternative Songs" chart. It spent 6 weeks on the chart. [2] Kevingt ( talk) 04:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep:Point no. 5 in the criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The band released two EPs and two albums on Relativity Records -- which has its own Wikipedia article -- and Relativity is a subsidiary of Sony Music. Sony Music, by the way, is the one who has just released the 38-song Scruffy the Cat retrospective. Nightmareishere ( talk) 20:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The extremely loose criteria of WP:MUSIC notwithstanding, a subject must always be able to meet the GNG, and WP:MUSIC's criteria do not constitute a guaranteed pass. Ravenswing 01:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Incorrect -- GNG requires that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." They have independent articles published about them in the Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, just to name a few. So that in addition to the "loose criteria" of WP:MUSIC (they had 2 albums and 2 EPs on a major label Relativity and a retrospective on Sony/Legacy; they were also placed in rotation on MTV's 120 Minutes (national rotation on music television network) more than qualifies them for inclusion. Kevingt ( talk) 14:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Ravenswing:: the article has been improved, am hoping you'll review to reconsider your !vote. cheers.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Notable band, just an ill-advised nomination due age of the subject and lack of quality of the article. "Google search only brings up one article" is not a valid argument for a band popular in the mid 1980s. Scruffy the Cat, its a keep, alright.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 05:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps if they'd opened up for The Del Fuegos, they would have been even bigger, but they are a notable band.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've spent some time improving the article, I think its now much easier to see the band enjoyed meeting WP:GNG long before wikipedia existed.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Passes WP:BAND #1/ WP:GNG. Source examples include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Nomination Withdrawn - due to the one delete !vote above, I am unable to close this per normal processes. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:23, 30 August 2014 (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.