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 of the debate was keep as notable. - ulayiti (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Conglomerate and its redirect Harry Shaw-Reynolds and Jules Pascoe[edit]

Harry Shaw-Reynolds was originally speedy deleted as nn-bio. Restored by Tony Sidaway without bringing to AfD, although he did notify the other admin this time. Completing process for the original article and its redirect target.

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. See allmusic.com. I note that The Cat Empire lists Harry Shaw-Reynolds as a member, but he doesn't have an allmusic entry, so I'd like to see more info per WP:V. This mentions him but this won't load for me. Delete unless more information provided, in the event that Harry Shaw-Reynolds' member ship can be confirmed, obviously don't delete that article, but "The Conglomerate" would still fail WP:MUSIC as it says "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable", emphasis mine. brenneman^(t)(c) 13:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and same story for Jules Pascoe. No allmusic entry, some links to Cat Empire as well. More information? - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I really can't find much beyond the research above. To me, it doesn't make the cut. PJM 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep released an album on a major label. Kappa 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a band on allmusic called the conglomerate, but this is not them. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Kappa. -- JJay 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Album on major label, reviewed by major media. -- JJay 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Kappa, JJay - am I reading WP:MUSIC wrong or are you suggesting that we ignore it? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you are reading, but I read the review in the Sydney Morning Herald, hence my vote. -- JJay 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not "major music media", but I'd like to see it anyway. Generic name, bugger to search for, can you provide a link? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not major media? I believe it's Australia's largest circulation newspaper. The link is in the article, which I assume you read. The CD was also prominently reviewed by The Age. And frankly, allmusic.com is not exactly an authority on Australian jazz.-- JJay 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did read the article, however I had forgotten that that the link was from the SMH. It was so brief, I assumed that you were talking about something else. It's not a major music magazine, which is the criterion I was referring to. See Category:Music magazines.
• The lack allmusic entry in of itself means nothing, systemic bias and all. It's just an easy way to see if something passes the bar: two albums on major label, international tour, gold album, etc. These guys don't appear to have those.

brenneman^(t)(c) 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, what's your point? -- JJay 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, my point is that these inclusion guidelines were worked out by a very large number of wikipedians over no small amount of time, and if we are going to ignore them in this case it would be nice to know what the reason for doing that is. This isn't straight forward, so I may spread the word a bit to get a wider opinion. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that it is you that is ignoring the spirit of the guidelines. You like to make accusations, but reviews in two of Australia's leading newspapers with combined circulation of over 400,000 is far more impressive to me than a mention in many of the so called major music media in our category. Furthermore, do you really doubt given this exposure that the Conglomerate has been mentioned in Jazz publications in Australia? Have you even tried to confirm this? And why you deny the connection with the Cat Empire is beyond me. At times I can not understand what motivates your zeal. -- JJay 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm just trying to be consistant and orderly, as is my nature. I'm sorry if I've offended or insulted you, or if you feel like I've made "accusations". I brought this to AfD because that's the best thing to do with something borderline and I'm simply pointing out how the guidelines apply. It's not personal, nor is there zeal. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being extended and relisted to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still very concerned that we're about to disregard a guideline based upon a 3/2 split. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - record on major label, coverage in two of Australia's largest circulation newspapers, seems quite notable to me. Certainly meets the level of exposure the criteria of WP:MUSIC suggest. -- Jonel | Speak 22:16, 11 January 2006 (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.