- 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 no consensus. The quality of the sources appears to be borderline with an equal split of opinions on either side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Uncle Slam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The only coverage I could find in a somewhat reliable source is
this. There are some other reviews in places like metal-archives.com, but I don't believe those are reliable enough to establish notability.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, metal-archives is user-generated and not a reliable source.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a shame because the name Uncle Slam with the album cover art is pretty rad. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, metal-archives is user-generated and not a reliable source.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Caroline and Restless are notable labels. They're reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Reviewed in Blabbermouth and Decibel; don't know much about those sources, but they're listed as reliable. Caro7200 ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Caro7200 listed some facts that establish notability, so I think he meant "Weak Keep", not "Weak Delete". Coupled with the things he said, some of the members are also part of
Suicidal Tendencies, which is a notable band, so I think multiple aspects of notability are met.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- A band doesn't become notable because members of the band are notable themselves. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at
WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS)
02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- This statement by Doomsdayer520 is not necessarily true. See the preamble of NBAND where it states the subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). It does not state that it is immediately notable. There has to be significant coverage related to the item, not just a passing mention. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at
WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS)
02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I'm sure this vote won't help with consensus but I gotta be honest. Above, Caro7200 mentioned some reviews in reliable sources. The band got lucky with an album review in the Chicago Tribune, but read it here: [1]. It is one paragraph long, only mentions one song, and uses platitudes like "combination of anger and persistence" that could be said about anyone. Reliable source, but not significant. On the other hand, reviews at Blabbermouth [2] and Decibel [3] are quite robust. That helps with criterion #1 at WP:NBAND, and being signed to two notable labels helps with criterion #5. Having several members that are notable for other endeavors helps with criterion #6 (though this is admittedly a stretch and the notability of some of those people is suspect). Some good news and some bad news in this analysis, but the good manages to squeak past the bad. In any case the article needs to be cleaned up up pretty badly. And their name is brilliant. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete there seems to be some coverage for this band but it still remains rather limited. If none of their works have charted on Billboard, then notability would still remain a doubt. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A group doesn't need to chart on Billboard in order to be considered notable. The article needs cleaning up and references to be added, but as per Doomsdayer520 I believe they are notable enough to be kept.
pinktoebeans
(talk)
18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- But none of the members are themselves notable. I checked their bios and they all fail GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. release on Caroline and Restless are good for wp:music#5. Online coverage scrapes in for #1. Likely to have been covered in magazines of the day.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- What online coverage? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the subjects with articles were not actually notable and have undergone their own AfDs (or PRODs) and so the argument that this band had multiple notable members is no longer valid. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (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 no consensus. The quality of the sources appears to be borderline with an equal split of opinions on either side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Uncle Slam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The only coverage I could find in a somewhat reliable source is
this. There are some other reviews in places like metal-archives.com, but I don't believe those are reliable enough to establish notability.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, metal-archives is user-generated and not a reliable source.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a shame because the name Uncle Slam with the album cover art is pretty rad. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, metal-archives is user-generated and not a reliable source.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Caroline and Restless are notable labels. They're reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Reviewed in Blabbermouth and Decibel; don't know much about those sources, but they're listed as reliable. Caro7200 ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Caro7200 listed some facts that establish notability, so I think he meant "Weak Keep", not "Weak Delete". Coupled with the things he said, some of the members are also part of
Suicidal Tendencies, which is a notable band, so I think multiple aspects of notability are met.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- A band doesn't become notable because members of the band are notable themselves. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at
WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS)
02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- This statement by Doomsdayer520 is not necessarily true. See the preamble of NBAND where it states the subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). It does not state that it is immediately notable. There has to be significant coverage related to the item, not just a passing mention. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at
WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS)
02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I'm sure this vote won't help with consensus but I gotta be honest. Above, Caro7200 mentioned some reviews in reliable sources. The band got lucky with an album review in the Chicago Tribune, but read it here: [1]. It is one paragraph long, only mentions one song, and uses platitudes like "combination of anger and persistence" that could be said about anyone. Reliable source, but not significant. On the other hand, reviews at Blabbermouth [2] and Decibel [3] are quite robust. That helps with criterion #1 at WP:NBAND, and being signed to two notable labels helps with criterion #5. Having several members that are notable for other endeavors helps with criterion #6 (though this is admittedly a stretch and the notability of some of those people is suspect). Some good news and some bad news in this analysis, but the good manages to squeak past the bad. In any case the article needs to be cleaned up up pretty badly. And their name is brilliant. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete there seems to be some coverage for this band but it still remains rather limited. If none of their works have charted on Billboard, then notability would still remain a doubt. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A group doesn't need to chart on Billboard in order to be considered notable. The article needs cleaning up and references to be added, but as per Doomsdayer520 I believe they are notable enough to be kept.
pinktoebeans
(talk)
18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- But none of the members are themselves notable. I checked their bios and they all fail GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. release on Caroline and Restless are good for wp:music#5. Online coverage scrapes in for #1. Likely to have been covered in magazines of the day.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- What online coverage? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the subjects with articles were not actually notable and have undergone their own AfDs (or PRODs) and so the argument that this band had multiple notable members is no longer valid. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (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.