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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested proposed deletion[1], concern was notability (and not the promotional content contrary to what is claimed on the talk page). Currently, the only claims to notability of this musician in the article and talk page are some generalisations about how relevant the Los Angeles music scene is (which definitely doesn't count under WP:MUSIC), and composing the soundtrack to a documentary about the making of a film (which, at the most, would earn a mention on the page about this documentary, it that qualifies as notable). Had a quick look on Google and Gnews, didn't find any coverage in independent sources. It may be that Bravo Johnson does have a claim to notability I don't know about yet, but at the moment this article appears to be well short of notability standards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is equally notable to other bands and artists. If you wish to delete this, you'd be well advised to delete every indie band on Wiki. I'm not wanting to engage you in an edit war, but having published, documented work as a musician = notable. MiscastDice (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one more notice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC says this: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.

Whether this article is valuable or not is a matter of opinion. As such, it should stay, since staying contributes to knowledge of rock music, while deleting would only satisfy the need for someone to feel like they're "cleaning up Wikipedia." There is no harm done if this article stays on Wiki, and it should not be removed solely due to a "rule of thumb" on notability. Indie artists are generally not as notable and documented as majors. MiscastDice (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article does cite several reviews of the band's album from reliable sources. I would recommend that somone clean up the article to make it clear that the subject is a band, not an individual. This source [2] makes that clear. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that all but two of the references cited are self-published blogs or purchase sites, neither of which count towards notability. The other two are web-pages that don't seem to have any published paper equivalent of the web page, which doesn't invalidate their claim to notability, but does weaken the claim somewhat. I'm prepared to hear arguments for why reviews in acousticmusic.com and popmatters.com is a sufficent claim to notability. The argument I don't buy, however, is the notion that we should suddenly ignore all the rules of notability that Wikipedia has used since it started its existence. (If it does stay, a lot of the promotional language needs to go unless the claims can be properly verified.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources don't have to have a paper publication, but they must exert editorial control. Popmatters is accepted at FAC, and the other appeared to also have editorial control and regular contributors. I agree with you that the blogs and self-published stuff need to go and the article needs a rewrite. Karanacs (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the keep vote. Please show me where the changes are needed and I will make them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiscastDice (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changes have been made. Is this good? MiscastDice (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is one of those bands that is relatively well known within their musical niche, but has a tough time meeting the notability standards due to the lack of coverage in more traditional media. I found a survey of radio station playlists which appears to be nationwide and has a Bravo Johnson song at #14 [3]. A Bravo Johnson album was also reviewed in a magazine which has a print edition [4]. Individually each of these sources is fairly marginal, but I think that altogether they are enough to establish notability. --Megaboz (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw per additional evidence of notability by Karanacs and Megaboz, on the understanding that the article is re-written to conform to verifiability and neutral point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 January 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.