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. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC at the moment. Even the creator of the article admits here " I assure you that this band is gaining notoriety". When they have gained that notoriety (and notability, and significant third party coverage) then the article can be recreated with such. Please contact me if anyone would like the content userfied. Black Kite 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elmwood (band)

[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:MUSIC. No third-party media attention. Only notable member is a drummer that won a competition. Author has not responded to requests to cite references for notability. Singularity42 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The band has no third party references but on the drummer that is known. Consider deleting this article but create a page for this notable drummer? On the other hand, Wikipedia community (as I can see) seems to have accepted that fact that this band's album Dreaming Little Things is notable because this article has been on Wikipedia for appox. a month already and no one seems to disagree with it. Would it be strange to have an article about the band's album without having an article about the band itself? Or maybe you can consider AfD Dreaming Little Things too? Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have kept Dreaming Little Things on my watchlist as well. I was waiting to see if we could establish a consensus about the band's notability before dealing with the album article (i.e. if the band article is deleted, then the album article would fall under WP:CSD#A9 for speedy deletion). I initially PROD'd the band's article shortly after both articles were created, but when the article's author said he could establish notability, I gave it two weeks before bringing it here. So I don't think we should use the existence of the album article as showing that the band is notable (too much circular logic). Now, WP:BAND says that a band is notable if it has two or more independently notable members, so just the drummer isn't enough. Of course, we shouldn't blindly follow policy - but I don't think the only claim to notability being that a member won an annual drumming competition is enough for a Wikipedia article. Singularity42 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I wrote the article. I have been wanting to cite specific sources but I am swamped with work. The only chance I have to make edits is at work where I have computer access. I welcome anyone else to add references because I assure you that this band is gaining notoriety. Kbr1656 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why asking someone else to add references? If you have time to write comments , I think you should have time finding references instead of asking others to do it... right? If the band was as notable as you say it, there should be no problem in finding 3rd party sources on Google, for example. It would take a few minutes or perhaps seconds... I have searched and I have not found anything reliable or pertinent in establishing the notability...maybe it is the same for you? Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that up until last night I did not have as much free time or the resources as you apparently do. I was at the computer lab for five minutes and I posted that comment to try to save my article from being deleted by other people who have more time. Like I said, usually the only time that I can make edits is at my place of work which happens to be during the night. It's not like I was begging someone else to add references because I didn't want to. I am trying to improve the article as I go along. The only thing I don't want is someone to come along and wipe out something that I put a lot of work into. Many people are more concerned with following guidelines and policy than they are about proper sharing of information. If you have that much of a problem with the article, then I am sorry.Kbr1656 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The band passes WP:GNG. See this article from The News Tribune and this article from The Bladen Journal (see the full article here). Cunard (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited in the previous keep opinion demonstrate that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Searches for numerous permutations come up with nothing else. The fact that this band has opened for several highly notable acts and has nonetheless drawn no material coverage is telling. ^Bongo_matic 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. Two reliable newspapers have devoted articles to this band and its performances. It has received material coverage. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had earlier closed this discussion as "keep" missing a late posted "delete" !vote. I still feel that after a relist the consensus is to keep but considering my closing statement, I felt it best to revert my close and allow an administrator to close it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongomatic. I have reviewed Cunard's sources. The Bladen Journal is a purely local news source at best. The first one is not from the News Tribune but another, local, newspaper of similar name, as evidenced by the different domain name, the display of WV weather on the page, and the inclusion of (!) ticket prices and phone numbers in the article. Fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not preclude local sources from establishing notability. I would vote delete if only one local newspaper covered this band; however, since two newspapers have devoted articles to it, I have voted keep.
However, this is not local coverage of a local band. This band has received coverage outside of its own area. The Bladen Journal is a newspaper based in Bladen County, North Carolina and the News Tribune is from Keyser, West Virginia, while Elmwood band is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
This band passes WP:BAND #1. It [h]as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The reliable sources provide significant coverage about the band and its performances, thus precluding it from meeting one of the exceptions of WP:BAND #1: Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading the second source, it is apparent that it originally came from a student newspaper. The only apparent reason why this band got such coverage is because a member of the band is the alumnus of the said school and another member came from Keyser, WV. Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The article isn't written neutrally either. On the basis of there being only one independent reliable source about this band, delete. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 27 September 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.