Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Points of interest related to Music on Wikipedia
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions – Cleanup

Points of interest related to Music genres on Wikipedia
Category – WikiProject

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Music. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Related deletion sorting

1 Music
2 Music Proposed deletions
3 Bands and musicians
4 Bands & musicians Proposed deletions
5 Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Music

Broken Electric Records

Not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, until those artist/discography entries can be made blue links (that don't get deleted). --fvw * 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brand New Entertainment

Is this record label notable? The article is currently sourced only to its own website and the artists it has seem notable primarily or only because they have released 2 albums on this label. Kind of a walled garden. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails to meet WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Jazz Records

Non-notable defunct corporation. Unreferenced and it looks like there isn't any substantial information out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and also un-referenced and one-sentence stub, no notability shown. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hewitt

Previously considered here and left for cleanup; whereas the band's article is now defensible, this article has not been improved and remains sourced only by himself; outside the context of Tractor (band) and running some festivals in the 1970s, he does not appear to be notable. Rodhull andemu 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is purely used to serve Chris Hewitt's tenuous links to the music industry, and any attempts to include verifiable truths (which are justifiably negative about Hewitt's business practices) about this man are simply removed (by the man himself) and replaced with more, shall we say, favourable text. 21:04, 1 December 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.131.64 (talk • contribs)

The object of this discussion is not to insult the man himself, however strongly you may feel about him; it is to decide whether he is notable enough to have an article here. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the equivalent would be having a Wiki page for one of the stage crew at Woodstock (although that in itself isn't strictly accurate as Woodstock was a globally newsworthy event!). The man is fond of self-publicity, and that is why he created his own Wikipedia page. Surely an article on a stage technician from small-town rural English festivals 30 years ago do not warrant a place on this valuable resource of information? 16:00 4 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.131.64 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kautz

Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. The only coverage I can find is the reference mentioned in the short interview in The New York Magazine "look book", which is far from significant coverage.
I redirected Kautz' band Electric Tickle Machine article to his biography, thinking that Kautz was notable at that point. The band fails WP:MUSIC though, too, with only one additional name drop (Welsh).
Amalthea 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Impaled Northern Moonforest demo

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. No sources at all. Nothing notable about this work. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - another article establishing its own non-notability, even in the title. Is this a new trend?--Pgallert (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Soramimi

This article has gone a year without any credible sources and isn't very encyclopediac anyway. Looks like Japanese pop-culture-cruft. RobertM525 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Someone had too much time on their hands. Indeed, not encyclopedic, no sources, just OR and trivia. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary a cut down version of the page (defintion plus some examples) 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is famous from a popular feature started in 1992 on this TV variety program. Choose any from this page and watch. But if you cannot speak Japanese, it's difficult to understand the funniness of it. The word 'Soramimi' is a noun form of hear things. Oda Mari (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Records

Label has one barely notable band, no media coverage by 3rd party sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you NOT read the article or follow any of the references? Please allow me to present the "third party" sources:

Half of the bands on the label are active in the Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio region as well as in Louisiana. Before Ace Weekly dumped all of its online backlog, there were several articles on Eugene Records as well as the bands it sponsors. Ace Weekly is a Lexington based arts and entertainment magazine that promotes the alternative scene as well as the mainstream happenings in Central Kentucky.

Given that today is Thanksgiving, it may take me a while to contact those people who still have paper copies of those articles if you really need to have those additional references.- Team4Technologies (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it has been pointed out that the edits from Hoponpop69 to similar articles may violate WP:Point and/or WP:Disruption and his User Talk page shows evidence of his violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, so this may just be yet another episode of a volatile user. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop that and discuss the article and not the nom. The user's supposed past disruptiveness and personal attacks should not come into play unless they are directly affecting this topic. In a nutshell, assume good faith. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] is a user edited site.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is notable in that it occupies a niche market for punk music in the region, it has a stable of bands that have long histories, several bands on the label (like the Infected and the Kenmores) are nationally touring bands, and produce an internationally distributed fanzine (Eugene Fanzine). While that may not sound very notable for more urban areas, this is Central Kentucky we're talking about. It's about as notable as it can get there. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet notability for companies because it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Central Kentucky argument is very weak - in this case, notability is not relative to region. As said in the nom, there is apparently only one barely (if that) notable band that is part of the label. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep This afternoon I talked to the director of Eugene Records and when he gets the chance (probably over the weekend) he will give me some references that are more established. He says he keeps all of the material that's been published about Eugene Records, Eugene Fanzine, and as many articles about the bands on the label as possible. Hopefully in the next few days I'll be able to revamp the article or he will do it, possibly tonight. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ORG. A label with no notable artists is pretty much non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep They are notable enough. That's my conclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep A record label with as many releases as this one seems to me to be worth keeping. the infamous rmx (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete it doesn't matter how many releases the label has, if the notability is not there.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

F4L Rcords + F4L Records

A couple of "teens" out of "the streets of detroit" 'founded' a record label. Dare I mention the "inherent" notability that comes with the lack WP:RS? WP:1000THINGS is looking for an update - the perfect addition of Vanispamcruftisement awaits. . . Flewis^(talk) 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - for one thing, it's a misspelling of F4L Records. If the latter were to survive, this article should be a redirect to it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1(talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --GreyCat (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (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.

77: The Year of Punk and New Wave

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1(talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've added an article from the Independent as a reference. It's a large UK paper, and therefore a reliable reference, which confirms notability. Strummer25 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Musiconradio.com

Non-notable music-related web site. Off-key in regard to WP:RS and WP:WEB. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by article author: Site has been edited for content. And is similar to other sites of the kind. Please advise on any additional changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiconradio (talk • contribs)
Delete, fails WP:WEB, no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete under A7, not even an unsourced claim to notabiility. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete for blatantly advertising one's own product? wp:spam! Drmies (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. No reliable sources found to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1(talk) 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Take Me to the Hospital

Not even released its first record, this record label may be reposted if and when it is notable. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The label is notable enough for a wikipedia page. The single "Invaders Must Die" has been released by the label. And the album "Invaders Must Die" is soon to be released.--Jkneon (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Purely crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. JdeJ (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethereal Pandemonium

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. No sources given at all. It's been orphaned since June. It is horribly written which, given that standpoint, if the band were notable after all, it would be best to delete this and start over. But, as it stands, this band is not notable. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Exogenic Records

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 02:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song)

Articles for deletion/Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song) (2nd nomination)

Very little info, which could easily be integrated into the main Wolfmother article. The song is not very notable, only appeared on a soundtrack, which like I said should be included in main. Main author of current form of article listing. Andre666 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment There was another AfD discussion that closed 10 days ago with a result of no consensus. What is the purpose of renominating it again so soon afterwards? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did notice this, but figured that my alternative may not have been mentioned previously; that is, just to merge the information into the band or album article. Sorry if this is breaking rules. Andre666 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NSONGS (rank of 83 out of 100 in one poll too low to be significant, coverage almost inexistant).--Boffob (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Really weak keep - Is a track on the soundtrack of a major movie (I think that satisfies marginal notability), though the article is pretty darn stubby and shows little potential for expansion at this time. Maybe merge it into the notes section of the main album article and redirect to such or do same towards the band's article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep: stubby but can be expanded. This is a reasonably noted song in a major film release. JamesBurns (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:MUSIC "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". I don't see this growing beyond a stub - so merge and redirect if useful content to merge or delete if no merge worthwhile. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. To be short: You can't delete if material is merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - what I meant was merge and redirect OR if there is no content worth merging, delete. I'll update accordingly. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Simply being featured on an album, soundtrack or otherwise, is not a criteria for notability, WP:MUSIC clearly states that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and "a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". It cannot inherit notability from the movie. --neon white talk 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the album article per WP:MUSIC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is there to merge? --neon white talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The song originally had another name and it ranked on a notable music poll. Not much else, and admittedly that's borderline trivial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a non-plausible search term, per the reasons given by Unusual? Quite & Neon White. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Music Proposed deletions

Bands and musicians

Chris Marion

Not notable outside of the two bands he's played in. First hits were MySpace and Facebook. Article has been unchanged in two years, no secondary sources exist for Marion himself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RBD - Empezar Desde Cero World Tour

Another apparently non-notable band. The article consists of nothing but effusive adulation and track listings, and no sources. There are a few hits on Google beyond the usual facebooky and myspacey links- these are all in Spanish, which I don't understand, but judging from the web addresses they don't look like the reliable sources we require. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Empezar desde Cero Tour 2008. Apparently somebody decided to post an article about this group's discography and all their tours' set lists under an article title referring to just one of the tours. We already have an article about this particular tour, so redirect to there. (The notability of RBD under WP:MUSIC is certain; they would qualify just on U.S. chart performance alone, without getting into their hits elsewhere.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aha. Now I see what's going on. I'm not familiar with the band and thought it was called "RBD Empezar Desde Cero", which is why I could find no sources for it. Nevertheless, excessive praise and track listings are not a basis for an article. Of course if someone were to be bold and perform the redirect I'd have no issues with this discussion being closed early. Reyk _YO! 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies

I know the guy who wrote this, and he compiled the article in its entirety directly from an interview with the lead singer. What more do you need to hear? It is totally legit.

Local band that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, despite a couple of reviews in local media. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This band has been reviewed in both Paste (magazine) ^[1] and Curve (magazine) ^[2] on top of being listed on the blog site, Idolator as No.1 for the "Top 40 of 2007"^[3] Also, bassist Alex Maiolo also plays in the band Hi Fi Sky with Tim Sommer Blu3cat (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the references for the VVLL articles in Paste< -- its not available online unfortunately.

Weak keep. The article still looks way too promotional, but I think the sources establish notability. TheLetterM (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was notified about the reviews in the magazine, but did not have access to provide accurate references, since I do not own any subscription. I believe the only question left is that of blatant adverstisement. Could you point out the issues that concern you most? If you think about it, any wikipedia article for a band is advertisement inadvertantly. There are no advertised shows, album sales or any sales pitches for one to listen to the band. Clarification would be great because the band is notable enough to deserve an article. Mfleader 1 December 2008

Notability is established through authoritative, independent, third-party, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The independent third parties of importance are the news stations WRAL-TV, Curve (magazine), Paste (magazine), The News & Observer, and Idolator.com. In addition under WP:MUSIC, they also establish notability in being the most prominent representative of the style neo-psychedelia in the Chapel Hill music scene. Both news stations are the major new stations in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle. This is the second largest metropolitan demographic area in the state behind Charlote-Gastonia-Salisbury, which is mostly Charlotte anyways. Please refer North Carolina for demographics. The question of blatant advertisement still stands and I will gladly handle it if clarification is given. Mfleader 1 December 2008 20:33 Eastern Time (US & Canada) (I don't know what time zone everyone else is posting from)

Okay, the poetic flourishes are unintentional, but I am getting better and will cut them out in the future, but Drmies you did cut out the entire band's history rather than make the necessary deletions. Every band on wikipedia has a history, so i will continue to re-edit the page in order to make it satisfactory. Mfleader 20:56 (eastern time)

I haven't found anything on wikipedia about citing a personal interview with a band member. Or does it just not count because I do not count as a reputable source? Mfleader 22:07 01 December 2008(Eastern time)

I think that as long as the interview was published in a reliable source it's ok. If it was personal though (you interviewing a band member that wasn't for a publication), there's no real way to gauge the verifiability of that interview, and thus can't be cited as a source. What I think is more frowned upon is if it was published by the band itself. TheLetterM (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. Now, verifiability can be achieved in any number of ways--the interview could be published, for instance. But that the source be independent, that's another matter. Moreover, and this goes directly to the flourishes, the information in an encyclopedic matter needs to be relevant. The band's history may well be relevant, but who met how when and where, and what they talked about, and how they hit it off, in most cases that's simply not relevant--and the cases where it is relevant, well, you're talking George Martin and the Beatles, or Rick Rubin and Johnny Cash. VV is not there yet. Hairsalon Moshi Moshi? A birthday party? How is that not chit-chat, as my dissertation director used to call my flourishes? It's little things like 'as previously stated.' If it was previously stated, why say it again? In an article about a band that has one EP, an article that calls for three paragraphs at the most? I'm not sure, Mfleader, if you realize that what you might think of as rigorous edits actually increase the chance of the article surviving Afd. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand and I will be even more rigorous in deleting minor details you refer to as poetic flourishes. I was under the impression a poetic flourished only involved floury wording, which I am trying to cut out. However, I am determined to redeem this article. Even the meanest, bare-bones history of a band's origin and formation is entirely relevant and necessary in an entry in an encyclopedia; it does not become relevant after a #1 hit or gold album. It was important beforehand. I understand that since they are a relatively new band there will only be a minor entry. Have the issues of notability and blatant advertisement been dealt with thoroughly? Mfleader 21:48, 01 December 2008 (Eastern Time)

The article is much, much better than it was. At least now it's less a blog entry than an encyclopedia entry--the idolator and eardrumsmusic entries are written in pretty much the same style as the earlier versions. Still, and this in reference to the idolator entry (scroll down), the only hair salon I know that is relevant in music is found on "Oh My Lord" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, No More Shall We Part. Seriously, the article still has a lot of fluff.

Now, if the community agrees that the article from the Newsobserver and the Indy blog have enough weight (cause the others really are just blogs, with little or no authority), then WP:N might be established. But I still say that the article is way, way too long for a band that hasn't achieved that much yet (doesn't WP:Music mention two albums, on a major label?). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not discount the "blog" interview on WRAL, while it is a blog, the WRAL news station is definitely a reputable source, hence their electronic authors on their blogs receive the same credence they do. Nor should you forget the reviews in the magazines previously mentioned. I hope that helps my argument. I took out the part about the hair salon too. Yes WP:Music does mention 2 albums on a major label or active indie label (how ironic would a major indie label be?). Their next album is due out this spring, I know that doesn't mean anything right now, but I guarantee to repost the article upon that release if the community does not feel it meets notability standards now. Mfleader 22:16 01 December 2008 (eastern time)

Mfl, please refer to the Talk page--we're well outside of what should be discussed of AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep for now--while I don't have easy access to two more of the sources mentioned, I have faith that they're there. Moreover, the author, who is new to WP, is working really hard on this and we'll make this look good; I will accept the band's notability. Dear Admins, sorry for messing up the AfD page; I should have moved to the Talk page sooner. Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep The magazine articles would seem to meet our requirements for notability in good sources. Nicely done article too. (Maybe they should come to England and play next years Beautiful Days (festival)) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

^ Ray, Austin L. "The Report", "Paste (magazine)", May 2008.
^ Coble, Margaret. "EP I, Violet Vector & the Lovely Lovelies","Curve (magazine)", June 2008.
^ Johnston, Maura. "No. 1 (And No. 1): Backyard Tea Parties And Blue Balls", Idolator, 2007-12-31. Retrieved on 2008-12-02.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian Wardwell

Drops a lot of names, but asserts absolutely zero notability per WP:MUSIC. May be a little long for an A7. Most likely COI as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood Stands Still

As I see it, these guys fail the WP:MUSICBIO section of the notability guidelines. No notable members, no nomination for any awards, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I agree. There's nothing there. Mediaskare's deal with Century Media might sort of trickle down onto the band at some point, but not yet. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, seems to fail WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - YAMB. (Yet Another MySpace Band). // roux editor review 15:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Frontier Ruckus

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG Stifle (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [2], [3], [4], [5]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep, it at least barely passes WP:MUSIC#C1. davidwr/(

Contents