- 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. ST47 ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Slugs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lots of content, but almost all of it is unsourced. Neither any of the bands members nor any of its music appear to be independently Wikipedia notable, but there are some pretty old comments on the talk page about the songs being used in TV shows, etc. which might meet WP:NSONG. Article has been tagged with {{ More citations needed}} since May 2014, but most of the content of the article appears to have been added before the end of 2012. A very cursory WP:BEFORE Google search gets the Wikipedia article as the first hit, but not very much after that even going a few pages deep. I'm not seeing much here per WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, but there could be older sources out there somewhere. Article was WP:PRODDED early on after it was created in 2006, but deprodded (mostly based upon WP:OSE reasons) per discussion on its talk page. Way back in the day, OSE arguments might've have been given much more weight since there were so few articles in comparison to today, but don't thing that's really considered to be a good reason for keeping something these days. There does appear to have been some COI editing really early on, but not sure if that matters now. I asked about this at WT:MUSICIAN#The Slugs and also posted some {{{ Please see}} notices about it on some other WikiProject talk pages, but only one response has been received so far, and that particular response wasn't really something strongly suggesting the article should be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - This band easily gets over the line for notability based on the following references:
1
2
3
4
5. Specifically
WP:NBAND no. 1 is met.
FOARP (
talk)
10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these; number 4 is already added as an external link to the article, but the others I didn't find in my own searching. I wouldn't, however, necessarily say they easily establish NBAND (at least in my opinion). They do help clarify things a bit and they are certainly better than no sources at all, but only #1 and #3 seem close to SIGCOV with the other three looking more trivial in nature about band reunions (#2), being part of a compilation album of local bands (#4), and band members leaving (#5). All of these things, however, appear to be
local type of stuff with no evidence of any coverage outside the Chicagoland area. Significant coverage in regional or national publications showing they were more than a local band would be more helpful in clearly establishing notability, at least in my opinion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD is a
WP:CORP guideline.
WP:CORP explicitly excludes groups covered by other guidelines (e.g., bands, which are covered by
WP:MUSIC). The entire regional/local discussion happening on this page is yet another example of why
WP:AUD is a bad guideline when applied generally and should be limited to corporations, which is what it was intended to apply to anyway as a counter to corporate influence over local/trade media.
FOARP (
talk)
11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was aware that AUD is part of WP:NORG, but the reasoning behind it seem applicable here as well. There's no real indication that the band was anything more than a local band which played in local clubs. In fact, I might have actually seen them play once or twice back in the 80s. The Reader was (at least back then) nothing more than an ad paper with some articles, which was pretty much entirely devoted to local event (e.g. movie, concert) listings, roommate wanted, apartments for rent, job listings, etc. kind of stuff. I pretty much read it every week for those reasons as did most of the people I knew who also read it. The Tribune is a different story though and if the consensus is that those two Trib articles plus the Reader stuff are enough to meet NBAND, then it is what it is. In that case, the article would still seem to need to major pruning to reflect what content can be found in those RSs. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD is a
WP:CORP guideline.
WP:CORP explicitly excludes groups covered by other guidelines (e.g., bands, which are covered by
WP:MUSIC). The entire regional/local discussion happening on this page is yet another example of why
WP:AUD is a bad guideline when applied generally and should be limited to corporations, which is what it was intended to apply to anyway as a counter to corporate influence over local/trade media.
FOARP (
talk)
11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these; number 4 is already added as an external link to the article, but the others I didn't find in my own searching. I wouldn't, however, necessarily say they easily establish NBAND (at least in my opinion). They do help clarify things a bit and they are certainly better than no sources at all, but only #1 and #3 seem close to SIGCOV with the other three looking more trivial in nature about band reunions (#2), being part of a compilation album of local bands (#4), and band members leaving (#5). All of these things, however, appear to be
local type of stuff with no evidence of any coverage outside the Chicagoland area. Significant coverage in regional or national publications showing they were more than a local band would be more helpful in clearly establishing notability, at least in my opinion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Chicago Tribune and Chicago Reader as identified by FOARP which are regional sources not local sources, so there is no valid reason left for deletion in this case, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the
Reader is regional; it's (or at least it was back in the day when the article's cited above were written) a local weekly given out for free (or was given out for free) that focused on local events, etc. It was fairly easy to downtown (there were even newspaper boxes), record shops, some restaurants, at college campuses, etc. in the downtown or near north area of the city, but it became much harder to get a copy of one as you moved further into the suburbs. Perhaps these days every local paper which has website could be considered "regional" "national" or even "international", but I don't think papers focus ever went much beyond
Chicagoland in it's coverage. The Reader is/was port of a brand name with other cities having their own version of it, but I don't think that make any of them regional papers, unless you're defining the term quite broadly. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
-
Chicagoland has a population (broadest interpretation) of nearly 10 million people, but a publication covering it is "local" (or "regional", whatever the difference between the two is supposed to be). Meanwhile the Times of Malta is a "national" publication despite covering
an area with less than 1/20th of Chicagoland's population -
WP:AUD is a very, very flawed guideline. I get that it is supposed to stop articles being kept for small businesses simply because the Podunk Daily covered them in return for a free sandwich or whatever, but whenever it is applied outside of those narrow circumstances, it delivers ridiculous outcomes. Sorry, but the flaws of
WP:AUD have been a bug-bear of mine for a while.
FOARP (
talk)
11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I posted above, I don't have a problem with the Trib as a reliable source; the Reader, however, isn't even worthy of a comparison between the two. Chicago has/had many neighborhood newspapers to in addition to major ones like the Trib and Sun Times and none of these would be considered anything more than "local" papers. The determining criterion when it comes to newpapers being local or otherwise seems to be (or at least used to be) that the paper had an international/regional desk which focused on such subject matters; not the population of the city where the paper was located. Pretty much all of the coverage of the Reader was limited to local topic which means (at least in my opinion) that it's a local paper. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
-
Chicagoland has a population (broadest interpretation) of nearly 10 million people, but a publication covering it is "local" (or "regional", whatever the difference between the two is supposed to be). Meanwhile the Times of Malta is a "national" publication despite covering
an area with less than 1/20th of Chicagoland's population -
WP:AUD is a very, very flawed guideline. I get that it is supposed to stop articles being kept for small businesses simply because the Podunk Daily covered them in return for a free sandwich or whatever, but whenever it is applied outside of those narrow circumstances, it delivers ridiculous outcomes. Sorry, but the flaws of
WP:AUD have been a bug-bear of mine for a while.
FOARP (
talk)
11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the
Reader is regional; it's (or at least it was back in the day when the article's cited above were written) a local weekly given out for free (or was given out for free) that focused on local events, etc. It was fairly easy to downtown (there were even newspaper boxes), record shops, some restaurants, at college campuses, etc. in the downtown or near north area of the city, but it became much harder to get a copy of one as you moved further into the suburbs. Perhaps these days every local paper which has website could be considered "regional" "national" or even "international", but I don't think papers focus ever went much beyond
Chicagoland in it's coverage. The Reader is/was port of a brand name with other cities having their own version of it, but I don't think that make any of them regional papers, unless you're defining the term quite broadly. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don't place much weight on the Reader in this case either. The 2 Trib features, nudges them over the line of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 17 November 2019 (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.
- 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. ST47 ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Slugs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lots of content, but almost all of it is unsourced. Neither any of the bands members nor any of its music appear to be independently Wikipedia notable, but there are some pretty old comments on the talk page about the songs being used in TV shows, etc. which might meet WP:NSONG. Article has been tagged with {{ More citations needed}} since May 2014, but most of the content of the article appears to have been added before the end of 2012. A very cursory WP:BEFORE Google search gets the Wikipedia article as the first hit, but not very much after that even going a few pages deep. I'm not seeing much here per WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, but there could be older sources out there somewhere. Article was WP:PRODDED early on after it was created in 2006, but deprodded (mostly based upon WP:OSE reasons) per discussion on its talk page. Way back in the day, OSE arguments might've have been given much more weight since there were so few articles in comparison to today, but don't thing that's really considered to be a good reason for keeping something these days. There does appear to have been some COI editing really early on, but not sure if that matters now. I asked about this at WT:MUSICIAN#The Slugs and also posted some {{{ Please see}} notices about it on some other WikiProject talk pages, but only one response has been received so far, and that particular response wasn't really something strongly suggesting the article should be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - This band easily gets over the line for notability based on the following references:
1
2
3
4
5. Specifically
WP:NBAND no. 1 is met.
FOARP (
talk)
10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these; number 4 is already added as an external link to the article, but the others I didn't find in my own searching. I wouldn't, however, necessarily say they easily establish NBAND (at least in my opinion). They do help clarify things a bit and they are certainly better than no sources at all, but only #1 and #3 seem close to SIGCOV with the other three looking more trivial in nature about band reunions (#2), being part of a compilation album of local bands (#4), and band members leaving (#5). All of these things, however, appear to be
local type of stuff with no evidence of any coverage outside the Chicagoland area. Significant coverage in regional or national publications showing they were more than a local band would be more helpful in clearly establishing notability, at least in my opinion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD is a
WP:CORP guideline.
WP:CORP explicitly excludes groups covered by other guidelines (e.g., bands, which are covered by
WP:MUSIC). The entire regional/local discussion happening on this page is yet another example of why
WP:AUD is a bad guideline when applied generally and should be limited to corporations, which is what it was intended to apply to anyway as a counter to corporate influence over local/trade media.
FOARP (
talk)
11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was aware that AUD is part of WP:NORG, but the reasoning behind it seem applicable here as well. There's no real indication that the band was anything more than a local band which played in local clubs. In fact, I might have actually seen them play once or twice back in the 80s. The Reader was (at least back then) nothing more than an ad paper with some articles, which was pretty much entirely devoted to local event (e.g. movie, concert) listings, roommate wanted, apartments for rent, job listings, etc. kind of stuff. I pretty much read it every week for those reasons as did most of the people I knew who also read it. The Tribune is a different story though and if the consensus is that those two Trib articles plus the Reader stuff are enough to meet NBAND, then it is what it is. In that case, the article would still seem to need to major pruning to reflect what content can be found in those RSs. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD is a
WP:CORP guideline.
WP:CORP explicitly excludes groups covered by other guidelines (e.g., bands, which are covered by
WP:MUSIC). The entire regional/local discussion happening on this page is yet another example of why
WP:AUD is a bad guideline when applied generally and should be limited to corporations, which is what it was intended to apply to anyway as a counter to corporate influence over local/trade media.
FOARP (
talk)
11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these; number 4 is already added as an external link to the article, but the others I didn't find in my own searching. I wouldn't, however, necessarily say they easily establish NBAND (at least in my opinion). They do help clarify things a bit and they are certainly better than no sources at all, but only #1 and #3 seem close to SIGCOV with the other three looking more trivial in nature about band reunions (#2), being part of a compilation album of local bands (#4), and band members leaving (#5). All of these things, however, appear to be
local type of stuff with no evidence of any coverage outside the Chicagoland area. Significant coverage in regional or national publications showing they were more than a local band would be more helpful in clearly establishing notability, at least in my opinion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Chicago Tribune and Chicago Reader as identified by FOARP which are regional sources not local sources, so there is no valid reason left for deletion in this case, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the
Reader is regional; it's (or at least it was back in the day when the article's cited above were written) a local weekly given out for free (or was given out for free) that focused on local events, etc. It was fairly easy to downtown (there were even newspaper boxes), record shops, some restaurants, at college campuses, etc. in the downtown or near north area of the city, but it became much harder to get a copy of one as you moved further into the suburbs. Perhaps these days every local paper which has website could be considered "regional" "national" or even "international", but I don't think papers focus ever went much beyond
Chicagoland in it's coverage. The Reader is/was port of a brand name with other cities having their own version of it, but I don't think that make any of them regional papers, unless you're defining the term quite broadly. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
-
Chicagoland has a population (broadest interpretation) of nearly 10 million people, but a publication covering it is "local" (or "regional", whatever the difference between the two is supposed to be). Meanwhile the Times of Malta is a "national" publication despite covering
an area with less than 1/20th of Chicagoland's population -
WP:AUD is a very, very flawed guideline. I get that it is supposed to stop articles being kept for small businesses simply because the Podunk Daily covered them in return for a free sandwich or whatever, but whenever it is applied outside of those narrow circumstances, it delivers ridiculous outcomes. Sorry, but the flaws of
WP:AUD have been a bug-bear of mine for a while.
FOARP (
talk)
11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I posted above, I don't have a problem with the Trib as a reliable source; the Reader, however, isn't even worthy of a comparison between the two. Chicago has/had many neighborhood newspapers to in addition to major ones like the Trib and Sun Times and none of these would be considered anything more than "local" papers. The determining criterion when it comes to newpapers being local or otherwise seems to be (or at least used to be) that the paper had an international/regional desk which focused on such subject matters; not the population of the city where the paper was located. Pretty much all of the coverage of the Reader was limited to local topic which means (at least in my opinion) that it's a local paper. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
-
Chicagoland has a population (broadest interpretation) of nearly 10 million people, but a publication covering it is "local" (or "regional", whatever the difference between the two is supposed to be). Meanwhile the Times of Malta is a "national" publication despite covering
an area with less than 1/20th of Chicagoland's population -
WP:AUD is a very, very flawed guideline. I get that it is supposed to stop articles being kept for small businesses simply because the Podunk Daily covered them in return for a free sandwich or whatever, but whenever it is applied outside of those narrow circumstances, it delivers ridiculous outcomes. Sorry, but the flaws of
WP:AUD have been a bug-bear of mine for a while.
FOARP (
talk)
11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the
Reader is regional; it's (or at least it was back in the day when the article's cited above were written) a local weekly given out for free (or was given out for free) that focused on local events, etc. It was fairly easy to downtown (there were even newspaper boxes), record shops, some restaurants, at college campuses, etc. in the downtown or near north area of the city, but it became much harder to get a copy of one as you moved further into the suburbs. Perhaps these days every local paper which has website could be considered "regional" "national" or even "international", but I don't think papers focus ever went much beyond
Chicagoland in it's coverage. The Reader is/was port of a brand name with other cities having their own version of it, but I don't think that make any of them regional papers, unless you're defining the term quite broadly. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don't place much weight on the Reader in this case either. The 2 Trib features, nudges them over the line of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 17 November 2019 (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.