Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspection 12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:04, 15 February 2011

Inspection 12

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

Prodded back in September but contested after deletion. Still not convinced that they meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete doesn't appear to claim anything that satisfies WP:BAND and no citations either.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria 1 and 5 at WP:BAND are fulfilled

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/inspection_12/artist.jhtml http://www.allmusic.com/artist/inspection-12-p480906

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." One album released on Fat Wreck Chords subsidiary Honest Don's, and one on Suburban Home Records & Takeover.

Also 6. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Only one of the bandmembers, Peter Mosely is noteworthy enough to have his own article. Not enough to fullfill the criteria, but I just thought I'd drop this here as well. --Kaysow (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1, you do realize that the VH1 link is a mirror of Allmusic, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't ask me why everyone's using the same bio, but I don't think it' such a terrible thing. It's also featured on iTunes, MTV, AOL, Yahoo, MSN and Starpulse. Anyway, here's two good ones - http://www.punknews.org/review/404 http://www.punknews.org/review/6328 and also, the Honest Don's album is featured on the Fat Wreck store http://www.fatwreck.com/store/band/77 --Kaysow (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is coverage in The Florida Times-Union; a few examples include this, this, and this. Sure, it's local coverage, but it's significant and extensive over many years. Along with the Allmusic biography, it's enough for WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those three cites are pretty good for WP:BAND #1 and I'm minded to move to keep. All three are in the same local paper though, which is a bit thin. What coverage was there in the Florida Times-Union? Is it a similar piece to those or a passing mention of gig dates?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those three citations are from the Florida Times-Union, which publishes in Jacksonville. Those are just three I picked out of a large number of articles from that paper over the years: see here for the full results. Some of them note that the band received "national attention", and I guess the Allmusic biography and the review in Allmusic provide some additional evidence of that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, lots of cites from the Florida Times Union, which seems a reasonably large paper. Marginal though as it's all from the same local paper, would be better with a variety of sources. Will give the benefit of the doubt though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just notable per WP:Music have albums on notable indie labels, passed muster for AMG (albeit not a great feat), other secondary sources are local in nature but they do exist. Seems enough overall. A1octopus (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep, Very strong resume. The Musicians have been in multiple bands signed to major records labels along with major indie lables. They we're signed to Honest Don's which was a respectable indie label. Newspaper articles also indicate a major local band that has garnished some national attention.Foley227 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * '''Weak Keep''', lots of cites from the Florida Times Union, which seems a reasonably large paper. Marginal though as it's all from the same local paper, would be better with a variety of sources. Will give the benefit of the doubt though.--[[User:ThePaintedOne|ThePaintedOne]] ([[User talk:ThePaintedOne|talk]]) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''', just notable per [[WP:Music]] have albums on notable indie labels, passed muster for AMG (albeit not a great feat), other secondary sources are local in nature but they do exist. Seems enough overall. [[User:A1octopus|A1octopus]] ([[User talk:A1octopus|talk]]) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
+(UTC)
+* '''Keep''', Very strong resume. The Musicians have been in multiple bands signed to major records labels along with major indie lables.  They we're signed to Honest Don's which was a respectable indie label.  Newspaper articles also indicate a major local band that has garnished some national attention.[[User:Foley227|Foley227]] ([[User talk:Foley227|talk]]) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)