Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles

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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them Terribles

Them Terribles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial works. No charted single in any national chart. No gold certifications. No non-trivial coverage of international or national concert tours. Has not released two or more albums on a major label or important indie label. Members have not moved on to notable bands. Is not the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. No nomination for Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. "Dew Circuit Breakout" doesn't qualify as a "major music competition". "Bustin Down the Door" is not a notable work of media. No national rotation. "Get to know Them Terribles" is 41 seconds long on the MTV website, not "half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" —Kww(talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to harangue individual commenters, but I, at least, would greatly appreciate it if you would mention in what way you believe the subject has satisfied WP:BAND, or, failing that, why WP:BAND is not the relevant guideline.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Look at the sources the article now has. Reconsider your Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial works then. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sbdaily.com, the Daily Nexus, and sbdailysound.com are local papers, so they don't contribute to notability. Aside from that, you've only got the MTV2 coverage of an MTV2 contest.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you show me policy that "local papers" are trivial and unreliable and not 3rd party? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't see that about local papers at WP:N or WP:MUSIC. WP:MUSIC says school & University papers are often considered trivial, so Daily Nexus is not a big help, but I don't know of any similar issues with local papers. Can you point that out? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised: it's only explicitly stated in WP:CORP:"The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.". If you do a search on "local coverage", you can also see that it's a commonly prevailing argument at AFD, although it doesn't win 100% of the time.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they have a small ounce of notability. [1] they have a biography on mtv.com, [2] is a last.fm reference, [3], [4], [5] §hawnpoo 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, enough glass split. Come back later (days, not minutes) and review it again if you want. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironic keep - the article seems to assert notability satisfactorily now. Honest and non-sarcastic congratulations to Wikidemon for bringing it up to standard so quickly. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Times Square concert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to satisfy WP:BAND per the subjection of several independent sources - non-trivial. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have some notability and also have been played and recognized by MTV. To me that satisfies WP:BAND Brothejr (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, participated in the Vans Warped Tour. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate notability established; more would be nice. PhGustaf (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has now been established.--Dmol (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reverted inappropriate NAC as nom concerns were still outstanding. No reason to close in one day with issues unaddressed. No comment on notability StarM 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does fail WP:BAND. Only significant coverage is in local papers, the MTV brief mention is really part of something else, and the "brief stint" on the VANS Warped Tour means little, local bands are often invited to play a day or two. I can't find them on any of the past years' Warped Tour articles here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This really does kind of force some tension between "non-trivial coverage in local works" and the implied standard for subjects, which would presumably force us to demand more general attention. IMO, this is where WP:BAND or WP:CORP or WP:ATHLETE start to make sense (WP:ATHLETE especially). Some prep football player (that's US High School football) will get coverage in the local paper for tossing a game winning touchdown. Such coverage, were it in Time Magazine or The New York Times, would give us some clear indication that he is notable. For a local paper like that, we have to be much more careful. It may be inposible for us to neutrally protray the subject (or portray the subject with due weight to their significance in the industry if we granted time in the local paper at the same level as time in a major news outlet. So the subject notability guidelines give us some pointers. Has the band charted? Have they been a major part of a major tour? Are they signed to a major recording company? These are signs that they are 'notable' within their field and good signs that coverage of them will exist. I don't know in this case. I'm inclined to say 'weak delete', but I have a dim view of the SNGs in general where they conflict with the GNG, so I'm not sure. I will say that this should be given the five days before being closed. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If they had toured with some signed band on a nationwide tour (something more than "won a competition and get three days on Warped Tour or in Times Square" I'd vote to keep. And the Warped Tour thing happened in 2005. There just doesn't seem to be much there there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:There's at least a question about the value of local coverage, but PR Newswire? That' a band generated press release.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above there's non-trivial coverage by several independent reliable sources. Also, I've been shouted out of DRV in the past by several administrators for trying to get articles with much less coverage than this deleted. Not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but an observation. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep, there's no reason to drag this out.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I snow kept it before but got ranted on for doing it... I thought (I know its not majority vote but still hear me out) 9-0 keep was enough for a snow keep but i guess I was wrong... §hawnpoo 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I applaud you for being bold enough to do it. There are certainly sysops who've snow-kept articles after less than a day, very recently. Nevertheless, I think non-admin closure's probably best done strictly by the book.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I objected to the snow keep (and still would, if anyone is thinking about trying it) is that no one is addressing the deletion argument: the failure to meet the tests laid out in WP:BAND. The only sources on this are local newspapers reporting on a local band and MTV2 promoting its own contest. Put those aside, and this band fails every test in WP:BAND, but no one seems to care to apply the guideline to this article. There's always a chance that editors will come by that pay stricter attention to guidelines and quality of sourcing than the group that has already commented.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "voted" in this because I'm undecided; I'm unfamiliar with the contest in which they participated. If "Dew Circuit Breakout" is a major music contest, they seem to clear #9. If it isn't, they seem marginally but not (imo) clearly non-notable. But I do want to note that we don't need to put local papers aside, because they're not excluded by WP:BAND or WP:N, although you've quite rightly pointed out that they are under WP:ORG. It's understandable that an organization of local notability may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but with bands local notability is actually implied in one of the criteria: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city...." Local newspapers would be dandy to demonstrate the latter. (I know that nobody is claiming that here; I'm just pointing out that local sources may be fine per WP:BAND.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue against local sources to prove test 9, but I would treat that as a narrow exception. Case 9 really is a narrow exception: per local area, one and only one band can qualify.—Kww(talk) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to wonder if this article would've drawn this much attention had it not been the focus of teh dramarama earlier on. Pointless delete but I want it on the record; this band was a top six in a moderately high-level competition, and that would seem to be the limit of their notability at this point. No albums on recognized labels; no substantial coverage (PR Newswire is emphatically not a good source, and discounting the PR stuff I count a whopping four articles in Google News Archive); no indication of national touring... nothing that meets WP:MUSIC to my eyes. (And yes, winners of the MTV contest have reached notability, but they're signed to recognized labels and have major tours on their resumes.) If we're changing the guidelines for bands, let me know, 'k? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems they've cleared notability... Also FYI the article has only been around for less than 48hrs, so maybe we should give it a break as it seems based only on that point that it could be expanded to me et notability if it doesnt now. §hawnpoo 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find more, feel free to add it. I couldn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top 3, not top 6. That is "placing" (per category 9) because the top 3 of 12 finalists were flown to New York for what seems to be a nationally-broadcast play-off. They were also featured in at least a couple MTV-produced documentary segments devoted to them (which is significant coverage by a reliable source of nationwide distribution). It's already mentioned that it formally passes criterion #1 (coverage), so it's a bit of an IAR argument to say that local newspapers and entertainment news documentaries don't count. It satisfies #10 - they are one of the groups (along with David Bowie, The Stooges, Leonard Cohen, etc.) on a notable film soundtrack. If you think a small independent film doesn't count, again, that's an IAR argument. And then #11, rotation on a major radio network. It was sourced as on rotation at MTV2. MTV ought to count - no reasonable difference between a nationwide video network and radio network. So it satisfies four criteria of notability. And yes, I do feel this was a retaliatory AfD nomination, which along with it looking like a SNOW anyway is why I haven't felt much like participating. Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what I would be retaliating for ... so far as I know, you've never done me any harm. The questions really are whether this contest is an important one or not (which could be argued, but no one has ... it certainly isn't in the class of American Idol), and whether MTV promotion of an MTV contest is an independent enough source. I'd like to hear why you believe the surf documentary is notable. As for the MTV2 rotation, that again strikes me as MTV2 promotion for an MTV2 contest, and I would discount it on that basis.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me this seems to be more of an issue of WP:POINT than anything else. AfD isn't the right place to be debating these sort of guideline issues. Tothwolf (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? Discussing whether an individual set of facts surrounding an individual article meets or fails relevant guidelines is exactly what AFDs are for.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on all the above discussion it seems to me you are trying to determine the scope of WP:BAND and other guidelines. That is not what AfD is for. Tothwolf (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI fully agree, this AfD is becoming an arguement of policys/guidelines §hawnpoo 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Santa Barbara Independent is definitely a good enough reference, they have editors, therefore they are reliable. WP:BAND #1 does not exclude local papers and I don't see why it should. (Bands from out of town get covered in local papers too, and that also contributes to their notability.) Together with the other cited references (MTV etc) this article passes WP:BAND #1. Strummer25 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the significant coverage identified above in the Santa Barbara Independent and the Daily Nexus is fine to meet the primary notability guideline. In general I do not agree that coverage from local reliable sources should be excluded from establishing notability and, unless an article fails other inclusion policies, meeting the main notability guideline is enougth to merit inclusion regardless of particular subject specific notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 10 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Them_Terribles&oldid=1140239390"