Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination)

The Shells (folk band)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Shells
• Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination)

The Shells (folk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Written Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

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

Non-notable band; the only criterion of WP:BAND that they even come close to meeting is #1 (non-trivial coverage), but all of the coverage seems to be either trivial (tiny blurb in Seventeen) or from sources that were tagged as questionable.

The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting about a non-notable local award that the band was nominated for (did not win): the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award", which had MTV's name attached to it but was trivial, was never broadcast on national TV or mentioned on MTV's website, and which was only one of 8 or 9 similar local awards for other cities; its article has since been redirected after an AfD determined it was not notable. Thus, this band does not meet any of the awards-related criteria of WP:BAND. After the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption), I waited about a month until their first album was released. Now it has been released, and has generated no new coverage (I searched Google Web and Google News and saw nothing that wasn't already around before) and as far as I can tell has not charted or anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article Written Roads, about their non-notable album, is also set to be merged here (see Talk:Written Roads#Merge?). If this is deleted, that article should be deleted along with it instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Unless anybody objects, I am making this into a formal AfD on both articles. There is no need to deal with them separately. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note: User:Epeefleche, when he comments here, is the article creator (User:VMAsNYC, who created the article, was a former alternate account). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. The band is not notable. The album has not been reviewed in the national press. The album does not seem to have been reviewed by the regional press. The album does not even seem to have been reviewed by the specialist folk music press. So what have we got in the way of notability? Being selected for, but not winning, the regional leg of a competition under the auspices of MTV (but not broadcast nationally)? That's something but it is not good enough in itself. A very brief feature in Seventeen? Even allowing for Seventeen's terse style, 92 words is not "significant coverage". And then there is all the PR stuff, which is worthless. What we have here is an aspiring band that doesn't meet the notability requirements at all. Maybe they will one day but they need to get some reviews and sell some records first. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both per DanielRigal's well-explained rationale. There are absolutely no significant secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both, insufficient secondary-source coverage to comply with the notability policy. The award nomination did initially give a potential for meeting WP:BAND, but with the now-apparent local and obscure nature of it it confers minimal notability. ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both since the band fails to meet the notability requirements. The MTV award is a regional rather than a national prize, which they didn't win in any case. That leaves one mention in a magazine, which does not constitute the kind of coverage required to establish notability. Their album isn't available to buy from any major music supplier and seems to be download-only. Nor has it been reviewed in the music press. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:BAND, a band may be notable if it "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." I count three references that qualify. (1) The Seventeen article, or blurb if you prefer. It's brief, all right, but it's about the band, and it's in a major publication. (2) The article in the Queens Chronicle. A full fledged article, in a local newspaper. (3) Several paragraphs in a longer article in The Improper, which I just found and which is not referenced in The Shells article. The Improper appears to be an independent and reliable online arts and entertainment magazine. When the guideline talks about "non-trivial published works", the intention I believe is to exclude things like being mentioned in the weekend entertainment listings of a newspaper, or having your own article in your Boy Scout troop's newsletter. Then there's the nomination for Best Breakout New York City Artist Award. Okay, it's not really a major award, but it was associated with the MTV Video Music Awards, so it's not nothing either. In summary, it seems the band has three non-trivial independent references, plus, for whatever it's worth, the award nomination. I do think the album article could be merged with the band article for now though. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is how I see it:

• The Improper: May or may not be RS. Clearly just a passing mention of the fact that they played a joint gig at an event organised by their PR agency in conjunction with the The Improper itself. The extent of the relationship between The Improper and the band's PR agency is not clear but there obviously is one. In short, this is possibly PR coverage a definitely PR event. Trivial.
• Queens Chronicle: This is a simple plug for a local band. Not sure if it was ever published in print form. Nothing wrong with that, as it is done openly and honestly, but it does not impart much, if any, notability. I could make hundreds, no, make that thousands, of articles if we regard that coverage as imparting notability, just by scouring the UK local newspapers for articles that boil down to "Local band has a gig/event in town. Please go support them.". Trivial.
• "MTV": This band is not even on MTV's radar. Search for "The Shells" or "Written Roads" at MTV.com. See anything? Me neither. The competition, irrespective of its questionable linkage to MTV, would be worth something if they won, which they didn't. As it stands, it is worth a little. Slightly better than trivial.
• Seventeen: This is the best thing so far but it really isn't much. It is RS and it is better than trivial.

So what does that add up to? It is not significant coverage in my eyes. Give us two or three more featurettes like the one in Seventeen or just one proper gig or album review in a good RS source and then I will reconsider my vote. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to DanielRigal:

♦Seventeen: I'm pleased we agree it is a reliable source w/more than trivial coverage (as defined by WP:BAND). We're then halfway to notability, as we need only agree on one more such source to satisfy WP:BAND criterion 1.

♦Queens Chronicle: While you disparage it, comparing it to a "local" UK newspaper discussing a band "in town", in fact its readership of 400,000 is greater in size than all but the six largest cities in England. Second, its discussion of the band far exceeds WP:BAND's "triviality" test, as discussed below. Third, your uncertainty as to whether it ever appeared in print form is irrelevant, as WP:BAND criterion 1 makes clear ("This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as ... online versions of print media").

♦MTV: "Not even on MTV's radar"? "Questionable linkage to MTV"? Is this a joke? Just watch the MTV video below. Do you think that was fabricated by someone other than MTV? Simply read the MTV Official Rules below. Are you suggesting that someone other than MTV fraudulently created that MTV legal document?

♦Competition: Your comment that it "would be worth something if they won, which they didn't" is helpful. Because as WP:BAND makes clear, the fact that they were one of the top three nominees (out of 190 bands) is sufficient—they are treated precisely the same as winners for purposes of criterion 9 under WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Both. The band article clearly satisfies WP:BAND. The guidance's test for notability is that the band meet any 1 of 12 criteria. This band meets 3 of the criteria. Three times what it must meet to qualify.

1. Subject of Multiple Non-trivial Independent Reliable Public Works. One criterion that the band meets is # 1. Because it has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the [band] itself and reliable."

First, the review of the band by Seventeen Magazine (reporting for 65 years; its circulation of 22 million is the 39th-highest in the US) two months ago states:

Band Spotlight: The Shells

August 5, 2009

Album: Written Roads (coming out October 8!)

Myspace: myspace.com/bombshelltrio

The vibe: Indie folk-rock mixed with a little R&B. Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls.

Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!

Our fave songs: Give a Little Take a Little, Wrong from the Start.

Seventeen's review plainly surpasses the guidance's "triviality" threshhold. WP:BAND's triviality test is not based on the number of words in the reference. But rather on the nature of the content. The guidance specifies that "trivial" refers to those articles that do not do more than: “simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.” Seventeen's review clearly does much more than that. It provides the reviewer's actual reviews and opinion of both the band and the band's CD. The review is in the magazine's concise format of choice. That format appears to work for Seventeen, inasmuch as the magazine is the largest-selling magazine to US college freshman.

Second, the review by Queens Chronicle last month (a newspaper which has been reporting for 30 years and now reaches 400,000 readers) says among other things that:

"The Shells, one of the hottest rock groups around, are one of three finalists vying for the MTV Best Breakout NYC Artist Award. The trio consists of singers Jessica Waltz, Melanie Klaja and Carrie Welling, who lives in Astoria. Along with a set of backup musicians, they frequently play shows in western Queens and elsewhere in the city.... [T]he MTV competition [is] set for Sept. 11 at the Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza in downtown Manhattan....
These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, “Written Roads,” next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV. The award will be presented during the network’s Video Music Awards, set for Sept. 13 at Radio City Music Hall."

This article also meets the guidance's standards, and is clearly non-trivial. These two reviews together are sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND's first criterion.

They are of course in addition to the article mentioned above by Mudwater, which appeared last month both in The Improper and The Examiner (by Keith Girard, Editor-in-Chief of TheImproper, who has been a journalist for more than 30 years and an Editor-in-Chief for more than 15 years at publications such as Billboard magazine. His syndicated column appears in The Washington Post, Boston Globe, and San Francisco Chronicle.). And this is without even giving any consideration to OurStage's article, or MTV's interview, or blogs such as this one, or this Dutch review.

2. Nominated for Major Music Award. A second criterion that this article meets is # 8, in that the band has been "nominated for a major music award."

The MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) are clearly major music awards. And the band was nominated for the "MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award".

(a) That the award is an MTV VMA, you can clearly see from "MTV's VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Contest Official Rules". MTV's Rules repeatedly refer to the award as an MTV VMA (see, e.g., Sections 1 & 2).

(b) Also, the MTV VMA logo attaches to official releases regarding the award, clearly identifying it as the "MTV Video Music Awards '09 Best Breakout NYC Artist Award".

(c) And this MTV video clearly refers to it as an MTV VMA. The video not only starts off with the MTV VMA logo (indicating the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, "hosted by Russell Brand"). But at the end it says: "To see who wins the VMA for best breakout artist, tune in to the VMAs on Sept. 13 at 9 PM". The official VMA ceremony was of course hosted by Russell Brand on Sept. 13 at 9 PM. Note: This MTV video is hosted on a Time Warner/partnerships/MTV url. This accords with references by MTV in Sections 14(a)&(b) of MTV's Official Rules to an MTV co-branded website with TimeWarner.

(d) Official communications refer to the award as a VMA as well. Note: MTV's co-sponsor is OurStage (identified as such by MTV in Section 4 of MTV's Official Rules).

(e) (added Oct. 18) The MTV VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, as announced by TimeWarner and MTV on their joint website in an article entitled "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category".

3. Won or Placed in a Major Music Competition. A third criterion that this article meets is # 9, in that the band has "won or placed in a major music competition."

The competion for the above award was a major one, in that:

(a) it was an MTV competition (MTV being a major name in the music field);

(b) the competition involved 190 bands;

(c) the competition between the final three nominee bands was held at a major venue (The Fillmore at Irving Plaza; a significant 1,100-person venue); and

(d) the panel judging the finalists consisted of an MTV person and two VMA performers (Fefe Dobson and a singer from Cobra Starship).

(e) (added Oct. 18) as mentioned above, the VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony.

Note: The winner and the other two nominees are treated precisely the same for purposes of notability under criterion 9 of WP:BAND.

Album page. The WP:Album convention is that where the band article is not deleted, the band's album article likewise should not be deleted. See discussion here.

Irrelevant discussions. The band only needs to meet 1 of the 12 WP:BAND criteria. That notability test does not involve assessing the band relative to criteria that have not been cited as indicia of this band's notability. Therefore, discussion as to what criteria the band does not meet (e.g., how many CDs it has sold, through what channels, on what label) is just irrelevant diversionary red herrings.

Deja vu. If editors experience a sense of deja vu here, it may be because this same nom previously nominated this article for deletion.

♦ This nom's effort to garner consensus support for deletion failed a mere 15 days prior to his renominating it for deletion above. Nine editors spoke up indicating that the article was notable. Its notability obviously did not lessen over the past 15 days, so I would submit it clearly it is still notable today.

♦ This nom then protested the decision to the closing admin. Without success.

♦ This nom then appealed the closing nom's determination. Without success.

♦ This nom then sought to delete the Category "The Shells albums". Without success.

♦ This nom continues by now renominating this article for deletion a mere 15 days after his last nomination of the same article failed, and 5 days after the band's debut CD release.

WP:DELETE says, in pertinent part: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Such is the case here.

Furthermore, this nom—invited to the page in the first instance by an editor who was wikihounding me (as discussed at the first AfD)—has for some reason consistently and aggressively gotten in the faces of other editors who don't share his view. Even himself wikihounding me to other pages, as here—where he received a sharp rebuke from the editor whose talk page he followed me to. He has also repeatedly exagerated, made overreaching characterizations, and even made untrue assertions (e.g., above as to the basis of the closure of the prior AfD). I've for the most part avoided detailing them, and instead—in contrast to his approach—have delineated the relevant points in the guidance, and provided sourced basis for this article meeting the guidance criteria. I question however whether this is productive activity on his part that is in the best interests of Wikipedia.

In summary, this band clearly meets the WP:BAND criteria. Three times over. I'll leave friendly notices at a limited number of spots for editors who may have reason to have interest in this discussion. Thanks.

References

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised to see Epeefleche harking back to the first AfD, given that his behaviour there got him blocked for a while for sockpupetry. To answer the point about 15 days. It is very clear that the first AfD was botched due to the confusion caused by the sockpuppetry and the misleading arguments put forward. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have started a second AfD immediately after the deletion review was turned down. In fact, that was what many people on the deletion review suggested. We were being very generous by waiting to see if the the album's release tipped the band over into notability. It hasn't. I was planning to give it until this upcoming weekend and then, if redoing the searches still turned up nothing convincing, nominate the two articles for AfD myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's not accurate. First, the sock complaint was brought on the unfounded suspicion that I had used as another account the "Holtzman" account; the Checkuser showed that account to be unrelated. The block was contested as unjustified, and quickly lifted with an apology because I had not engaged in sockpuppetry. I had used more than one account for maintenance purposes, however, which of course is acceptable, but to avoid even the appearance of impropriety I suggested that I would abandon my existing maintenance accounts.

Second, it is a completely unsupported fabrication for you to write "the first AfD was botched due to the confusion". The admin closed the AfD writing: "The result was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion per WP:GNG or for retention per WP:BAND; neither argument came on top here." When the nom then aggressively (while making some misstatements/mischaracterizations) protested the admin's decision, the admin responded to the nom: "I didn't see either argument on either side come up on top as I stated in the AFD closure (hence the "no consensus" close). I did read through it, and I don't think it would have made much a difference with the sock !vote in there or not, as the registered users on the "keep" side made their point clear." After the nom noted one more time that he disagreed, the admin replied: "We saw two different things."[1] What of course makes this an even starker result is that there was in fact no sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept that you were not Holtzman but you were several other accounts. Rather than argue further I will simply suggest that anybody interested can have a look at your talk page where they can see the details and draw their own conclusions. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Again—There was no sockpuppetry. Only permissible alternate maintenance accounts that had nothing to do with the AfD; hence the admin's lifting of the block, and apology. And it is a completely unsupported fabrication for you to write "the first AfD was botched due to the confusion".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: The Examiner article you link is not real coverage, it says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands). The OurStage thing is a press release (not a RS, just fluff). The blog is also not an RS. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's a mischaracterization. The Examiner article says more than that. Specifically:

"More than 200 people from the media and music industry, as well as fans ... turned out for TheImproper.com’s 'Live at Gibson Studios' music showcase Sept. 17. Four up-and-coming New York bands performed .... Fans came from as far away as Canada to ... hear the bands.... The featured bands ... played in the same storied space where Michael Jackson and Jimi Hendrix recorded. ... Carrie Welling, Jessica Waltz and Melanie Claja, known collectively as The Shells followed up with the urban flavored rock and country hits. The band is a finalist in MTV VMA’s Best Break Out Artists competition. The band will release their first full-length album, Written Roads on Oct. 8 at the Canal Room in New York City."

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Epeefleche, half of that quote is not about The Shells, it's just general mumbling about the venue. And the rest is not a review, it's just stating facts ("they have album coming out! they're in a contest!"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a review but non-trivial coverage is not limited to reviews, and by your own admission your previous statement that "it says nothing more than "they played at this thing"" isn't entirely true either. As you noted above, it states at least 2 other facts about the band: it also mentions their musical style. It's not extensive coverage by any stretch of the imagination but the 2 little paragraphs devoted to The Shells do say something about the band.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per excellent analyes from Epeefleche, the sources already present are easilly sufficient to establish noteability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest rereading them carefully and considering my points above. They are not as impressive as they first look. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this article which is extensively referenced for WP:V, thus also WP:NOR. Fairly WP:NPOV as well. It clearly meets the other content policy guidelines, so I won't belabor them. Notability, though against my philosophy, is well-argued above. The (re)nominators need to give up the ghost. - Draeco (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment -- Speaking of deja vu... epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is? Do you think editors don't know how to click the link and read it themselves? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to get back to the subject and move the discussion forwards, I would like to make some suggestions:

1. Can the people who are voting "keep" but who have not made it clear what they think should be done with the album article please clarify their stance on that?
2. Can we try to dig up a bit on the band's record label "WeThreeRecords"? I am not getting much on this. Are any other bands on it? They don't seem to have a website. (www.wethreeerecords.com seems to be a completely different thing with the same name.) Is this a vanity label set up for the band but with an established label (indie or major) standing behind it (the option that points towards notability), or is the album actually self-published (the option that points away from notability)?
3. Can we try to get an idea of how widely the album is available for sale? It is on CDBaby but I can't find it anywhere else. It is not in Amazon.com or Google Shopping. Is it exclusive to CDBaby and, if so, does that count as indie or self-published?

--DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for CDBaby: I have college buddies whose bands have multiple albums sold through CDBaby (and published by real record labels), and they are not notable. Selling your own album on CDBaby does not notability make. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So albums on CDBaby can be either self-published or not? Is that right? If so, their presence on CDBaby doesn't tell us much either pro or anti notability. OTOH, if they really are only on CDBaby (which we still need to be sure about), and have no traditional record deal, would it be fair to say that this makes them an unsigned band? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think they can be published under a made-up label (i.e., a label that was created just for that band) with the help of a professional producer. For an example, look up the band "Walk the Moon" there—they have some things on CD Baby which were produced by their own label but also had a professional producer involved in some way or another. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:NM guidelines exist to stop editors from using Wikipedia to plug their mates' band which sold 37 copies of a self-published CD down the pub or whatever, not for us to argue about whether an MTV award category with 190 initial contenders is "major", or whether a review in an indisputably major national magazine counts as trivial! The definition of "trivial" in this context seems reasonably clear: "such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." It refers to things like this. An actual review expressing an opinion of a particular band or release is obviously non-trivial even if it is short: the notability guideline has no express or implied minimum wordage limit, and I've read reviews which waffle on for hundreds of words yet still say less about the music than Seventeen's review, whose terse format is typical of that particular publication. In addition to the local newspaper article, the article which appeared in The Improper and The Examiner tells us a bit about each of the acts covered, including The Shells, so it just about qualifies as non-trivial. As for the assertion that the album Written Roads has not charted or generated any further non-trivial media coverage, give it a chance - it was only released about a week ago! However, I would have no objection to merging its article with the band's article. Both articles are well written and well referenced but also fairly short, so I see no harm in merging them. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't. (Who cares that it had 190 contenders, I've seen elementary school talent shows with 190 contenders.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's a mischaracterization. The MTV VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Award award was properly redirected to the somewhat notable 2009 MTV Video Music Awards page.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, because the AfD determined it was not notable enough for its own article. Redirects are navigational aids, not indications of notability. Also note that the redirect was quickly followed by a discussion at Talk:2009 MTV Video Music Awards over whether or not the NYC award was worth including at all (and the discussion was initiated by some other editor totally unrelated to me, the big bad one-man crusader/stalker/whatever else you like). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. The convention with all MTV VMA Awards for 2009 (and nearly all Grammys) is to list them on one main awards page, rather than on separate pages. The redirect of the MTV VMA simply quite properly comports with that convention. Clearly Grammys and MTV VMAs are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both I even helped epeefleche improve the article, but I just can't see sufficient coverage. The Seventeen review, no matter how much you go on about the meaning of 'trivial', it is very minor, brief and it alone is not significant enough for two entire articles. I don't see the significance in the MTV either, much larger awards wouldn't be enough coverage to satisfy me on the matter. Now that the album has been released, there has seemingly been no further exposure, the release through CD Baby seems minimal and as mentioned above, no more than just anyone could do. The label doesn't bring up anything on searches, and is very dubious. As for keeping the band article and merging the album, that is out of the question. All or nothing. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both Fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG, TD;DR wishful thinking above notwithstanding. Wikipedia band entries should reflect the readers' desire to find info more than the band's desire to get the word out. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's actually my point too. Wikipedia isn't a magazine: readers aren't likely to stumble across an article on a subject which doesn't interest them while searching for something else. Those who look up a particular article generally do so because they're already interested in the topic: without that initial interest, Wikipedia articles do nothing to promote their topics.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: We ThRee Records mentioned here: http://wearsthetrousers.com/2009/10/01/regeneration-3-gina-birch/ "The Raincoats is reissued through We ThRee Records on November 9th." It does appear to be a "real" label publishing more than one act. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I have done a bit more digging on this and I am pretty certain that this is a completely unrelated, UK based, record label which just happens to have the same name. Their home page is http://wethreerecords.com/ and they appear to be dedicated exclusively to reissues by British post-punk band The Raincoats. Their "buy" links go to the Rough Trade Shop website were prices are quoted in UK pounds. I would be amazed if they had any connection to The Shells. Everything about The Shells seems New York based. I can't see them choosing a British record label with no US presence for their album. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for checking it out. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. Seventeen is certainly a RS, but their coverage of The Shells is trivial. The Queens Chronicle article is so promotional that it can’t be regarded as a RS. The Improper article is about an event that The Improper co-sponsored with The Shells’ PR firm; so it is not independent, and even then its coverage of The Shells is trivial. Then there’s MTV: As has been mentioned before, mtv.com has no mention of The Shells and no mention of "Written Roads". It also has no mention of "Best Breakout" for this year and no mention of the winner, MeTalkPretty. —teb728 t c 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is the second time around. This time, the nominator, Rjanag (who is an administrator and ought to know better), tries to elevate himself with cheap-shot tactics alluding to how the common riff-raff in the previous AfD got all excited and engaged in “repeated ranting”. Moreover, his quick mentioning of “repeated ranting” seems to be the basis for his justification for bring this issue up for a second time. I think the bottom-line issue is that the “repeated ranting” over which he finds great disfavor amounted to nothing more than “discussion that lead to an outcome he didn’t like.” So here he is again with a second try. If there isn’t a Wikipedia policy against this sort of thing, there ought to be. As I stated before, I note that Rjanag’s interest in this article seems to have started over cover art and non-free content and the exchange there makes for interesting reading (“the “f-word” being used once by an editor who weighed in on that thread). It also appears, in my humble opinion, that this is much to do about ruffled feathers and edit disagreements. Bottom line: Any rock band that got so close to wining an MTV award is clearly notable enough, IMO, for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I last looked into this issue, this bickering has brought about so many header tags in the article about its supposed shortcomings that the wording of the tags exceeds the word count of the body of the article (202 words vs. 164). I encourage the nominator to drop this. It may be that a WP:WQA will be required here. No editor should have to put up with so much flack to add to Wikipedia. Ample electronic white-space is available, below, for the nominator to make politically correct protestations over how I “fail to assume good faith” regarding his intentions. Sorry; your actions, Rjanag, speak louder than your protestations of having motivations as pure as the driven snow. I suggest you drop this and go find something more productive to do. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It might help if you explained exactly where you feel the convincing demonstration of notability lies. All the supposedly significant coverage has been debunked leaving the same minimal level of genuine notability as before. It is not nothing but it is not significant either. If you don't like Rjanag, fine, but please judge this article on its merits. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I addressed two things in my above post, all of which is easily parsed for those who care to actually read it: 1) How I find Rjanag’s behavior in this matter to be abhorrent, and 2) Why I think the article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia.

As to point #2, I addressed it following the bold “Bottom line”, above, so it was rather hard to miss: Any rock band that was one of the three finalists for wining an MTV award is clearly notable enough. If you, DanielRigal, don’t *like* the basis for my opinion, that that is your right. But please don’t bother to suggest that I didn’t “judge the article on its merits” because I did. M’kay?

As to point #1 (Rjanag’s behavior): I think this is a classic example as to how a single editor who ‘just won’t let go’ can make so many others have to jump through hoops and waste time. In this particular case (the second AfD on the same article after he didn’t obtain the desired outcome in the first), this is as utterly needless as it is disruptive. Wikipedia affords individuals far too many opportunities for this sort of thing and it all amounts to oh-so-much Wikidrama.

As for what facts in the article have been “debunked”, I couldn’t possibly care less; the only criteria for notability is evidenced by what is in the article now. Given that Rjanag has employed every quasi-permissible Turkish butt-stabbing on the editor responsible for this article, I am assuming that facts such as nearly winning an MTV award are A) true, B) sufficiently cited, and C) quadruple checked. That’s all that’s need to demonstrate notability. Greg L (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why single me out? I'm not on a one-man crusade, as I'm not the only one who "didn't obtain the desired outcome in the first AfD". Check that AfD, and this; many editors desire that outcome. This is not about me or any other editor, this is about a crappy article about a non-notable band. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why single you out? Are you serious??? Because you’re the one who started the first AfD and you’re the one who started this one after you didn’t like the outcome of the first. That’s sort of a Well… Duh! reason, don’t you think? There better not be a third Afd on this article too. It would be unfortunate to see an admin called to the mat over such behavior. If you’re sharp, you’ll walk away from this. I swear, if there was a “This article smells like a diaper pail”-tag you’d have slapped it on the poor The Shells article by now. Greg L (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as detailed on this page, you (Rjanag) are the one who has twice protested the close of the first AfD to the closing admin (without success). Then appealed that decision (without success). Then sought to delete the Category "The Shells albums" (without success). Then brought this second AfD a mere 15 days after the prior one closed (calling it "about a month"). And exaggerated/misstated facts numerous times in both this AfD and the prior AfD and in other discussions. Wikihounded me even to the doorstep of other editors' talk pages—one of whom wrote to you there: "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted". Mischaracterized the Seventeen article three times—on September 29, and called the Seventeen article "tiny" in this AfD, and incorrectly stated how long it was in the prior AfD—and then amazingly turned around and publicly chastised me writing: "epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?" (if it were tiny, it could not have bothered you, and in fact you were the only one who had objected previously). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Twice, Epee? Dare I ask where the second one was? (Hint: there was no second one. Just DRV. So much for Mr. "The Truth" crusading against editors who "misrepresent the facts".) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I had suggested to Rjanag that we focus only on WP:BAND and WP:DELETE issues here, and move any other discussion elsewhere out of consideration to the editors. I can't control his posts of course, and the next thing he did was post the above question here. I can control mine, though, so I've moved my answer here to let this page breathe.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Greg L (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow indeed. What is the point in this whole delete action if the category page exists?  HWV258  07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETE contains no rule against re-AfDing articles where there was no consensus. I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article, it is tiny and almost every editor here agrees with that (just read the discussion, if you haven't yet). Really I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles and forgetting to address the article itself. You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Untrue. I've already quoted the pertinent part of WP:DELETE above. Your violation of it is IMHO flagrant and disruptive. Without any new information you brought another AfD disruptively 15 days after the close of the first one. For guidance as to what a reasonable period is considered to be, we have this.

And yes, you did misrepresent in the first AfD on Sept. 13 that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". When I then quoted the article, pointing out that you had misrepresented its length, your response (to that and the rest of what I wrote) was, dismissively: "Way too long." Another editor intervened and responded to you: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."

You then on Sept. 29 again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here. When I corrected you, you chastised me for quoting the article.

You then in this AfD avoided preciseness and instead disparaged the article's length (calling it "tiny"). And then again criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review.

Your many innaccurate statements (always one-sided innacuracies), bullying of me in an effort to keep readers from reading the truth, mischaracterizations, and wikihounding have been intensely disruptive. They interfere with editors being able to make a determination based on accurate facts and reasoned discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• All WP:DELETE says is "allow a reasonable amount of time", which was allowed. You are free to argue about whether you think the time was reasonable, but don't accuse me of breaking "rules" that don't exist. It doesn't reflect well on you. And as for the "guidance" you cite, that's a tiny talkpage section, not part of WP:DELETE.
• As for my "effort to keep readers from reading the truth"...oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses. I suppose while my arguments against you are terrible attempts to hide The Truth, your arguments against me are well-intentioned efforts to fight against the evil administrator. Gosh, I feel so bad. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I tried to make clear, it is your series of flagrant one-sided misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, wikihounding, and bullying that I find disruptive. I gather from your response that I'm getting nowhere, however, in raising this to you.

As to WP:DELETE, your reading as to what is a reasonable amount of time is severely at odds not only with what I believe reasonable (what do you think is a reasonable cutoff then? 5 days? 1 day? an hour?), but clearly at odds with what the best guidance we have on the issue suggests, the discussion involving editors including an admin at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, which I referred you to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the discussion you linked above? It has nothing to do with this article. DGG's message in that old discussion are about nominating an article after two failed AfDs (not one), and they're about how long is long enough (not about how long is not long enough). Totally irrelevant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Also, how am I bullying? By putting your article up for deletion—when lots of editors think it ought to be deleted? You're going to need a thicker skin than that to edit here; everyone, including me, has articles of theirs get put up for deletion.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• As another example of your incivility, the above message came to me from you with the following edit summary: "learn how to read".

Yes, I read the discussion. It is relevant. It is clear from the discussion IMHO that a second AfD as here, a mere 15 days after the first closed, with absolutely no new information supporting it, is not what the editors viewed as being a "reasonable amount of time". And, as WP:DELETE says: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."

As to your request that I give an example of your bullying, your berating me for my quote of the ("tiny") Seventeen article is one example. And this. Perhaps we should stop this back-and-forth, or move it elsewhere. I doubt others care to re-read you saying things aren't true, me demonstrating that they are, followed by you moving on to another subject as though we never had the discussion. My point in this thread was that I share Greg L's amazement that you responded "Why single me out?" at the top of this thread. I've detailed why. I suggest we close this, and let people focus on WP:BAND, WP:DELETE, and the facts here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• "No editor should have to put up with so much flack to add to Wikipedia"—agree completely with GregL. We are seeing an ugly side of the policing of WP. This is precisely the sort of thing that drives people away.  HWV258  07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing ugly is how much some editors are crying about a normal AfD process, and turning an AfD into a wikiquette alert. If you guys want to complain about how terrible I am and how I've hurt your feelings, WQA is thataway. This page is for talking about the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that there is too much normal about this AfD process. It is becoming increasingly obvious to all that you simply didn't get the outcome you desired, and are unable to simply walk away. But I do agree that "ugly" is entering into it now. It's not to late for you to simply leave it alone, take a deep breath, and find other areas to help improve WP. Please.  HWV258  07:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wake up and smell the coffee. You can rant about me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty of other editors also desire that outcome (deletion of this non-notable article). I may be the one who started the AfD; that doesn't mean I'm the only one who wants this article deleted. Have you bothered to read the discussion? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Wake up and smell the coffee"—keep digging that hole. "Rant"? I don't think you know the meaning of the word, but your use of it does help us all to understand how you are interpreting this particular corner of the world. Thanks! "...Plenty of other editors also desire..." both sides of the argument. I have bothered (as should be obvious from the fact that I never suggested that there aren't other editors who want the article deleted). Of course, whether those other editors would have gone to the extraordinary length of starting another RfD so soon is another question.  HWV258  08:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. For the reasons given above. Looking forward to !voting a third time :-(  HWV258  21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hopefully your third vote will be more useful than your first, which was hands-down the most useless comment in the entirety of that AfD. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Again ignoring the issues. I'm sorry that your onerous policing duties have closed your mind to other points of view at WP.  HWV258  07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm quite open to other points of view when they're expressed articulately; inane comments with no point are not "points of view". Your comment at the last AfD was not only useless, it was ridiculed by other editors. I don't consider that a "point of view". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I did express a reason (rendering your comment above of "useless" incorrect). I'm truly sorry that your black-and-white policing point-of-view closes your mind to the way another person expresses their opinion at WP.  HWV258  07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Idea: Sorry to keep wading in but perhaps it is worth thinking about this a bit differently. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether there would be any "keep" votes for an unsigned Norwegian heavy metal band who had received minor coverage in the Norwegian teen press, entered but not won the Oslo leg of a competition loosely affiliated to a Scandinavian TV network and who had a single, non-charting, self-published album? Please ask yourselves honestly what you would do with such an article? My guess is that such an article would stand less than no chance of survival, if it even got as far as an AfD in the first place. Is there really anything that makes this one any different apart from the glamour of New York?--DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how useful that analogy is since New York City has a greater population than the whole of Norway, but if your hypothetical band reached the finals of their leg of the hypothetical competition and also had significant coverage in a regional newspaper with an estimated readership of 400 000 then yes, assuming I was aware of the deletion debate, I would still vote keep. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps you should think about why you want to deny the poor Norwegian teens the opportunity to find out about a new entry on their music scene (and I'm going with a band name of Aërøsmîth)? E.g. imagine the disappointment when a downtrodden 15-year-old from Kristiansund in Møre og Romsdal hears about a new band from his friends, but then finds the "Encyclopaedic" WP offers not a Krone of help to discover more? Now I'm the first to point out that said teen would be far better served experiencing the works of Handel, but who am I to tell other people what they should/can be reading? <rhetorical question alert>Aren't there better things to do on WP without deleting articles?</rhetorical question alert>  HWV258  00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stop trying to rephrase this in terms of a deletionist/inclusionist debate. That disagreement is far bigger than any one article and we're not going to solve it here; your comment (and Epeefleche's below) says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'. Whether deletionism (or inclusionism) is bad or good is beyond the scope of this discussion, and we're not going to remake the Wikipedia community in one little discussion of one little band that no one cares about. This AfD is about a particular topic, not about rambling about intangible wiki-philosophies. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• And no doubt you'll help to organise a third RfC when you don't get your way with this one. You've simply shot yourself in the foot with telling comments like "crappy article" and "one little band that no one cares about". Logically, that's incorrect (as at least some people have demonstrated care). In terms of "crappy", please remember that there is no deadline on WP, so perhaps instead of trying to tear-down articles, you should spend equal effort in trying to improve them.  HWV258  05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've never organized an RfC in my life, much less a second or third one. I don't know what you're talking about.
• As for "trying to improve the article": for the millionth time, whether or not it can be improved is precisely what's at issue here. The whole argument of all the people voting 'delete' is that this band is so non-notable there is nothing else worthwhile to say about them and thus it can't be improved anyway. That's one of the key meanings of WP:N. This is not a brainstorming session for how to clean up an article that needs help; this is an AfD for identifying when an article doesn't belong here in the first place. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I didn't realise you didn't follow. "RfC" means "Request for Comment". When the article is put up for deletion, the community is being requested to comment. Regarding "doesn't belong here in the first place", I (and others) believe that (via the first delete attempt) when the question I see no indication that they meet the requirements in WP:BAND results in The result was no consensus, then there is enough grounds to keep (and work on) the article. I don't presume to change your mind, so please pay me the same courtesy. I will simply suggest that you move on and find something else to turn your talents to on WP.  HWV258  06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we should ask: Why are you pursuing a second AfD without any new news (15 days following the close of the prior AfD)? Instead of (given your interest in Norwegian metal bands) spending time either improving or putting up for AfD the following Norwegian metal band articles that lack any indicia whatsoever of WP:BAND notablity: 55 Escape, Spiral Architect, Artifact, Bloodthorn, Faustcoven, Limbonic Art, and Triosphere. This discussion is simply a diversionary red herring. If the band meets WP:BAND, its article should not be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Rjanag. Untrue. Irrelevant. And non-responsive. I obviously took no position on "deletionism". How does the phrase "either improving or putting up for AfD" possibly sound anti-deletionist to you? You are simply starting an irrelevant diversion here. Diverting us admittedly from the first irrelevant discussion that your colleague began above—which we were civil enough to respond to.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the hypothetical "Norwegian heavy metal band" was my casual example, not Rjanag's and I could just as easily chosen a similarly notable/nonnotable bhangra band from India (which might have been a better idea as the population is much larger). For the record I do put non-notable bands up for deletion when I see them. I don't have any specific grudge against The Shells. I have nothing against an aspiring band trying to punch above their weight. I just wonder why some people insist on treating them as if they are more notable than they are. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am looking at those Norwegian band articles you mentioned now. I agree that most of them (apart from Bloodthorn, who are more notable than you would guess from reading the article) and the associated album articles are obvious deletion candidates so I am PRODing some and tagging others. If we can get rid of some badly unencyclopaedic articles then at least some good will have come of this AfD. I would caution against using the WP:WAX type argument though. Just because you can find several worse articles in Wikipedia doesn't mean that this one should stay. The question is whether each band meets the inclusion criteria, not the relative lacks of notability in a notional hierarchy of non-notable bands. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever has to read all of this for the closure, what a joke. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, I have no problem in your expressing your opinion, but I'm disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you—in bringing calm, ordered resolution to this discussion. If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What Tony said.

Epeefleche: drop me a post on my user talk page when this AfD is closed by an uninvolved admin. If the decision is that there is no consensus for deleting the article, then the article—of course—stays. There is seldom a clear consensus for anything controversial on Wikipedia (just a lack of a consensus to make a change) so there is absolutely no justification for The Shells article to be brought up for a third AfD. Accordingly, the allegation that more AfDs can be brought up by the nominator as long as there isn’t a clear consensus to keep the article is beyond specious; it doesn’t work that way.

The reason, Epeefleche, that I want you to contact me after this AfD is closed is that I’ll go to The Shells and delete each and every one of those header tags if they’re still slapped all over the article; none of them are needed. That article has been struggled over by opposing parties for so long that there probably isn’t a single sentence that ends with a preposition and its facts are about as well-established and cited and quadruple-checked as those in any article on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the article could use a photograph of The Shells. Since “fair-use” of non-free content is a bit of a grey area, and given that you have gotten under the skin of an admin who isn’t exactly upholding the best principles of Wikipedia lately, you aren’t going to get the benefit of the doubt. So I’ll advise you on how to go about obtaining a GNU-licensed photograph from The Shells and help you to run it through the proper channels so it can be added to the article. Nice decorative photographs really enhance articles.

I would though, like to see a 200-word (or less) explanation as to why it is OK for articles like Bang-A-Boomerang, which feature cover art of albums that have fair-use licensing such as this, and why the same treatment is not suitable for The Shells. I note also that promotional art, such as this pre-release movie poster (and this lets “artsy” movie too) are used without reservation on Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the details of your battles over fair-use of non-free content. Do you feel that there has been a double-standard here? Did you try to Greg L (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A no-consensus close would not mean there suddenly is consensus to remove a {{notability}} tag—the whole purpose of the tag is because there is no consensus as to whether the subject is notable. If the AfD is closed as Keep, then there would be a valid reason to remove the tag; if it's closed as no consensus, then the concerns raised by editors are still relevant. The other four tags on the article are all irrelevant and will all be gone soon: the AfD tag will be removed (by definition) after the AfD is over, as will the article rescue tag, and the {{merge}} tag is a tag for Written Roads, not this article, and will be removed once Written Roads is dealt with (most likely by merging it, as no one has expressed an opposition here to that proposal).

As for fair use: the article you cite is an article about a single, not about a band. Guidelines for using non-free cover art in a single article are different than for a band article; the examples you cite are not relevant to this article, there is no double standard. (And even if there were, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as tags go after this is over, you are raising all sorts of wikilaywering reasons for why endless wikidrama should continue on this dreadfully unimportant issue. I’m not in the least interested in being a sounding board for you to test your latest legal theories for why what you are doing isn’t simple disruption. In the end, it amounts to nothing more than whining by yet another editor whose DNA seems to render them utterly incapable of accepting defeat and getting on with life—someone who insists on exacting his pound of flesh from some unfortunate contributor who had the misfortune of placing non-free art here and getting crosswise with you. They lipped off to you and you summarily dismiss him with “all these articles will be deleted soon anyway”. Nice move.

However, what would just thoroughly please you (have tags slapped perpetually all over the article) doesn’t improve Wikipedia one iota as far as our readers go. And that’s why we’re all here: to improve Wikipedia; not to provide a battle ground for you to endlessly draw out your wikidrama. The article has been a battle ground long enough, has more than enough citations to buttress the facts of the 164-word stub, and the band is notable enough.

If the upshot of this page is that there is no consensus to delete the article, the tags will be removed when this is over. If you want to put them back in (an exceedingly unwise option in my opinion given your record on this drama), that is your prerogative. The only tag I think will be appropriate is a {{Rjanag didn’t get his waaaaay}}‑tag. I’ll let that one stay. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One tag is not exactly "slapped all over". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Rajang. Your assertion that "no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged is incorrect. See my discussion at the heading "Album page" above. In addition, k.i.a.c wrote: "As for keeping the band article and merging the album, that is out of the question. All or nothing."

As the discussion at WP:Albums reflects, where the band page is not deleted it's "generally accepted" for album pages to be kept. Indeed, its for that reason that a former admin in that discussion restored the album page. The applicable guideline is WP:NALBUMS, which states: "In general, if the ... ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Under the guideline merger is reserved for album articles that don't--unlike this album article--have photos, reviews, and personnel information in the article ("Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article ..."). Furthermore, as the discussion at WP:Albums reflects, if there were a merger it would result in a loss of the photo and track listings (and presumably the personnel information), as the convention is to not reflect those on the band page; this further militates in favor of retaining the album page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment and further references I don't actually care who's right or wrong in some previous conflict between particular editors. If it is ongoing and spilling into this discussion that's unfortunate, but it's still not the point. What I see now is a decent concise, properly referenced article on a topic which easily exceeds the required notability criteria. For those still debating the notability of significant coverage in a major local newspaper and a review (short but useful) in a hugely popular national magazine, here are a few more snippets of media coverage:

• http://www.zackdaggy.com/mothpodpodcast/artist-spotlight-the-shells/ Artist spotlight: a main feature on podcast website The Mothpod
• http://lostinsound.org/?p=252 Review in Lost In Sound online magazine
• http://www.chargerbulletin.com/2009/10/06/interview-with-the-shells/ Interview in a university newspaper - not necessarily notable by itself, but it's worth mentioning that it's the University of New Haven, which is a considerable distance from NYC so it's not just local coverage
• http://www.timewarnercable.com/nynj/about/partnerships/mtv/nominees.html Time Warner Cable article on the MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award, with pictures and information on all 3 nominees. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Lost in Sound" is a self-published source, it was in the article weeks ago and was removed (not by me) as a non-RS. I don't know anything "Charger Bulletin", but it appears to be a student newspaper, so maybe it's halfway between RS and non-RS; I'll leave that up to someone else to decide. As for "Time Warner", they were the sponsor of the "best breakout" award and the piece you link is a press release. I don't know anything about the "Mothpod". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just glad to see that we are looking at sources again. The stuff CMP digs up is mixed. No one thing there would prove notability on its own but some of it is better than nothing and adds to the other minor coverage to get the band a bit closer to the finish line. It is moving me slightly towards a weakening my "delete" !vote (on the band) in the way that all the bluster has not. I am not formally changing my !vote yet but I could be persuaded if we can dig up a little more or firm up what we have. Are we sure that the Time Warner thing is a press release?

What I still don't see is any RS coverage of the self-published album since its release. I think the album article has to go no matter what happens to the band article. In fact, I am considering changing my !vote on that to "strong delete". I would again urge any "keep" !voters, who have not yet made their stance on the album article clear, to say what they think about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Time Warner is a press release, Time Warner was a major sponsor of the award (see [2] and [3]). They also sponsored the Los Angeles version of the awards; Comcast seems to have done the others. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Rjanag, could you please clarify what you mean when you say Lost in Sound is a self-published source? "Self-published" by whom? The website's "About Us" page lists 6 "current authors", none of whom appear to be affiliated with The Shells (the article in question was credited to "admin" rather than one of the named regular writers). As far as I can see, the magazine does not invite article submissions from readers. The article itself is quite obviously a third-party review: "I went to see The Shells last Thursday night" clearly isn't a statement from the band itself or a quote from a press release. Admittedly the author was probably invited by the PR agency which organised the show, and the review is quite upfront about this. A substantial proportion of "reliable source" media coverage is PR-generated at some level. The Lost in Sound review is PR-generated but expresses the author's own opinions of the band and their performance. I see no evidence of any self-publication, but maybe you know something I don't? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean self-published by the band, I just mean self-published. It's a blog, not an RS. Somewhere in the article history you can see it getting tagged {{Verify credibility}} and being removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it. I was the one who first tagged it, but User:CharlesGillingham is the one who removed it, calling it an unreliable source in his edit summary. (This user also voted 'keep' in the original AfD, so it's not like only the big bad meanies like me were criticizing that source.) These old versions can also give you a good flavor for the overly-promotional and mostly plagiarized ([4][5] nature of the original article that Epeefleche wrote. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be stretching the definition of "blog" somewhat, but thanks for the clarification. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the writers of this site aren't hired by anyone or subject to editorial review, they appear to have just gotten together and started writing whatever they want. Such a blog can sometimes be an RS if the writers are themselves notable in their field (see, for example, Language Log), but I don't see anything particularly special about this one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep I'd likely recommend a redirect if there were a place to redirect to. But the limited press and placing in a 190 band contest sponsored by MTV imply a degree of notability that indicates we should cover the band in some way. (this is for "the Shells" no opinion on the other). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Question/Suggestion: I note that The Shells is already pretty much a stub. I note also that if any general consensus can be deduced here, it is that The Shells—while perhaps being sufficiently notable for inclusion here—are certainly not the most notable band around. So why would we not merge Written Roads into The Shells?

The virtues are that by putting Written Road as a section within The Shells, that section (the part addressing the album) could show the cover art, (finally) bringing an illustration of some sort to The Shells. That would improve the look of the article and better serve our readership. Also, even after redacting redundant text from the section dealing with the album, The Shells-article will be expanded, which would also be beneficial. It seems to me that simply providing a redirect for “Written Roads” (pointing to The Shells) will best improve the sum of these articles and best improve Wikipedia; which is to say, best serve our readership.

Can we all make peace over this proposed resolution to this mixed bag of issues? You know; sorta like that 70s commercial where we all join hands and sing about improving the world through love, planting apple trees, hugging bunnies, and drinking Coca Cola? Greg L (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep Agree with all of the keep rationale, as weel as merging Written Road. Combined, there seems to be enough notable references between the articles. When more surface, someone can laboriously separate the articles. Luminifer (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. All I've seen is PR stuff, maybe-it's-reliable-maybe-it's-not sources, and trivial coverage. As mentioned before: The award that they were nominated for was simply sponsored by MTV, Time Warner and Comcast, and as mentioned before, The Shells nor the actual winners of the award, MeTalkPretty, have any mention on the MTV site itself. WeThreeRecords was speedied a month or something ago because it was not notable. I do not see anything "saveable" from these articles. If The Shells does survive this AFD, however, redirect/merge Written Roads into The Shells because the album does not pass WP:NALBUMS. talkingbirds 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are not of the depth that would establish notability; WP:N is not met. I have analyzed the sources in the article as of this revision on 09:03, 15 October 2009.

Analysis of the sources in the article

1. This press release from Absolute Pitch PR does not establish notability. Press releases are not independent of the subject and have not received the editorial fact-checking that newspaper articles have received. Published on July 20, 2009, this press release calls The Shells "an aspiring female trio." Aspiring music groups that have not passed the notability threshold do not belong on Wikipedia. 2. This article from a local source does not establish notability. The article's title, The Shells need your vote in MTV contest, clearly shows that the article is solely for promoting The Shells. A sample quote: "These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, "Written Roads," next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV." 3. This interview from Time Warner Cable provides no independent coverage about this music group. 4. Ourstage.com, a press release, is not a reliable source. 5. This page from ourstage.com doesn't even mention this band. 6. This article from Seventeen is not significant coverage. Save for providing the genre of this band's music, the rest of the information in the article qualifies as trivial coverage. WP:MUSIC states that "[w]orks 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" are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, this, too, is written in a promotional, non-neutral form. Sample quotes: "These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!" and "Our fave songs". 7. This press release from Fly NY does not establish notability. A quote from the article: "The Shells are proud to debut “Change” with Fly NY." This is clearly not a secondary source that is independent of the subject.

This band fails WP:MUSIC. It has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"; see my analysis of the sources above. It has also not been "won or placed in a major music competition." As teb728 wrote in the previous AfD:

“ [u]nlike a real VMA this is not based on a released music video. It isn’t even the only pseudo-VMA of the year: According to http://www.ourstage.com/go/mtv it is one of 8 “Best Breakout <<local>> Artist” contests. The VMA winners page doesn’t seem to have heard of any of them. ”

Winning a non-notable local competition that seven other bands won is not an indication of notability.

The released album has not charted and has not received significant coverage. I did a Google News Archive search and Google News search for "Written Roads" and was not able to find substantial coverage.

Since neither the band nor the album passes WP:GNG, neither the band nor the album is notable, both articles should be deleted. No prejudice to recreation if/when The Shells receive significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

It is not necessary for all sources of media coverage which contribute towards evidence of notability to be referenced in the article itself: it is enough that they exist. More references which arguably point to notability have been mentioned on this discussion page but omitted from your analysis, so it is not a complete analysis of all relevant factors with regard to WP:NMUSIC criterion #1.

Your dismissive analysis of the Seventeen article is somewhat contradictory. You quote the WP:NMUSIC guideline:

"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" are insufficient to establish notability.

and you then go on to say "Furthermore, this, too, is written in a promotional, non-neutral form." Of course it is; that's kind of the point of a review, and its very non-neutrality sets it apart from the sort of coverage (information limited to release dates etc) which notability guidelines define as trivial. The magazine's "Band Spotlight" format is specifically for positive reviews. The fact that a source completely independent of the band has featured them in such a positive (non-neutral) way supports notability. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the discussion above, I am unable to find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the band. The sources mentioned above have all been refuted by other users as being either passing mentions or coverage in press releases. If you have new sources that you wish to post here, feel free to list them here so that I can evaluate them.

  I cannot see how my analysis of the Seventeen article is contradictionry.

  I may be wrong about how the tone of the Seventeen source factors into its reliability, but this source does not count as significant coverage. The WP:NMUSIC quote you provided above specifically says that trivial coverage does not establish notability. As I said above, save for providing the genre of this band's music, the rest of the information in the article qualifies as trivial coverage (eg. 1. The band's album release date was Oct. 8; 2. Why should I listen? - The "gorgeous" trio wrote most of the songs themselves; 3. The editors of Seventeen's "fave songs" were "Give a Little Take a Little" and "Wrong from the Start"). Cunard (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Contains Mild Peril. Your discussion ignores the WP:BAND statement as to what consititues "trivial" coverage. The coverage here clearly is far above that bar, and since it it is non-trivial it satisfies criterion 1. Also, it is curious that you refer to the QC article as "promotional". It is a positive review by an independent 30-year paper w/a circulation of 400,000. For a NYC band, competing against 190 other NYC bands (so much for the hometown bias). If a writer for the Sporting News says I think that Jeter is great, this is why, he may get a Gold Glove Award, here are some details as to his performance, vote for him for the All Star team -- that's not a promotional press release. Its an article. The MTV discussion is similarly unconvincing IMHO (for the reasons discussed above; its totally at odds with what MTV says about the award, their communications, the MTV Rules, and the MTV video). And the discussion of matters not cited as indicia of notability is a red herring and not relevant (also for the reasons discussed above).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete for both A list of trivial coverage in no way makes this pass WP:BAND, and per excellent analysis of Cunard. Triplestop x3 03:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; MTV: I'm concurrently adding the following above where it belongs in the award and competition sections of my comment. But will post it here for a couple of days so that people don't miss it: The MTV VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, as announced by TimeWarner and MTV on their joint website in an article entitled "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing this link, which states: "On Sunday, September 13, live at the MTV Video Music Awards, the Best Breakout New York City Artist Award was given to... MeTalkPretty." The first runner-up is the Red Directors, while The Shells is listed as the second runner-up. That link does not establish that The Shells is notable. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• My pleasure. That's incorrect. Nothing in the link says that. To the contrary, as with all MTV VMAs, no nominee was deemed to be either "first" or "second runner up". As we know from the MTV Official Rules Section 14(a), while the VMA winner was also a "Grand Prize Winner", the other two VMA nominees (one being the Shells) were "First Place Winners".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "First Place Prize Winner" is just made-up fancy language internal to the award, it doesn't mean they won the contest—they didn't win. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Made-up" language? Nonsense. It's not made up. It's right there in the MTV VMA Official Rules.

But perhaps you miss the point -- which is that (contrary to Cunard's assertion above) The Shells were not "second runner-up". Rather, the two MTV VMA nominees who did not win the VMA both came in the same place (which MTV happens to call First Place Winner--not unheard of in music competitions). Since for WP:BAND purposes notability attaches to those who win or place in a major competition (criterion 9), as well as those nominated for a major award (criterion 8), it attaches to The Shells here. It doesn't matter if they place rather than win -- the two are equally sufficient for purposes of notability under WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- The sources are sufficient. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)