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. Secret ^account 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balacade[edit]

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

Declined A7 nominee. The article makes a claim to notability through chart rankings, but a Google search looking for substantial (vs. trivial) coverage to establish notability came up dry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete yeah, it "charted" at the local college's student radio station, according to the article. Consider me unimpressed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "unimpressed" or not, WP:BAND lists "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." as sufficient cause for notability. Your statement is incorrect and minimizes the articles references: the album not only charted on the local radio station, it placed within the top 200 nationally, please see: http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/2008/December/top200.cfm . If this ranking is not considered valuable, perhaps the above quoted item on WP:BAND needs to be altered. 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibosworth (talk • contribs)

"earshot-online.com" is another student radio thing, and is not what the "national chart" criteria in our music guidelines is about. The relvant national charts for Canada are the Billboard Canadian Charts and the Neilsen SoundScan Canadian Singles Chart. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification. Again, perhaps the criteria should be clarified. The fact that it specifically states "any national music chart" lead me to interpret it as being inclusive of college/campus radio stations. !earshot is quite established within canada, and while it might not be commercial, it is definitely official. As quote here "[...]the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." Alibosworth (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. Not sure how C2 can be further clarified, "national music chart" is clear enough. Rehevkor ✉ 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "clear enough"? because wp itself describes the chart in question as "the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." I fail to see how this chart would not qualify as "any national music chart" as per the WP:BAND notability requirement. If there is an unstated rule that the "national chart" has to be a commercial chart, what is the harm in clarifying the requirement? Alibosworth (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they could rename the chart so it's not confused as an actual national chart? Ho hum. Rehevkor ✉ 20:51, 26

Earshot is a non commercial NATIONAL chart. It collects playlists from every campus and community radio station in Canada. Billboard does the same thing with commercial stations. I believe the band has met this WP:BAND notability requirement.

Week Keep As WP:Band is currently written, Balacade passes. I have started a discussion on either clarifying "national chart" or deleting it. Click23 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero attention paid to them by reliable sources, and getting played on campus radio is not what is meant by a "national chart", that's just Wikilawyering. Spirit not the word, please. Fences&Windows 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below thttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balacade&action=edit&section=1his notice. Thanks, Tone 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've already closed this as delete but since the debate has developed elsewhere, it is reasonable to leave this open for a couple of days more in order to get a clearer picture. --Tone 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "national chart" discussion is what brought me here, see WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarify "National Chart" on WP:BAND. IMO National Campus and Community Radio Association meets the letter and spirit of criterion 2. It is an 80 member association, and looking at the map of its member stations I have trouble not classifying as 'national'. The fact that the stations are non-commercial should have no bearing on the validity of the chart. That being said, my !vote is delete, meeting any one of the criteria in WP:BAND does not supersede WP:GNG, as pointed out at the other discussion, the opening sentence of WP:BAND contains the word 'may'. This is a case when that has to be considered as there are no independent, third-party, reliable sources documenting this band and most of their releases (including the most recent) are self-released. Sorry for my grandstanding. J04n(talk page) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must also pass the general notability criteria with sufficient third-party sourcing. Not a fully national chart. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:58, 6 December 2009 (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.