Talk:Next of Kin (band)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Make an effort, please
[edit]Plenty of coverage here: [1]--Michig (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, 13 articles all announcing the release of a single. I am surprised it doesn't show the Music Week and Billboard listing as well, as both publications did (still do?) list every national release. So we have a confirmation that a single was released, is that what makes them notable? I subscribe to a private magazine that lists the publisher and contact details of every song released, that doesn't make them notable either. Both of the references are primary sources, you could almost have the article deleted as spam - that is assuming that the link to MySpace is actually for the same band. This is a general encyclopedia not a music encyclopedia, where the criteria would be different. At least I know you have improved some articles I have prodded and made them worth saving, but this one, I can't be bothered one way or the other, as it seems, neither can you, or anybody else! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- We know that they're brothers from Essex called Mark, Nathan and Kieran Bass, they were discovered in a Birmingham music shop, they have been compared to Hanson, and they had two top 40 hits in the UK [2]. They obviously meet WP:BAND via criterion #2 and we have enough verifiable information for an article. Sorry, but the PROD here was ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, If that's notable I'd better start writing an article about me, because I am more notable -- oops I can't, it would be COI. Oh well, WP will have to live without an article about me! BTW, Good improvements, but check the external links! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're not more notable, unless you've received more coverage in reliable sources than those I've just added to the article (which I doubt) and had more than 2 top 40 hits (which I also doubt). If you have then go ahead. It wouldn't have hurt you to remove the incorrect MySpace yourself. You don't seem to be editing very constructively. --Michig (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You should assume good faith, as I did in nominating this article. I didn't remove the MySpace link in case I was wrong (bands do leave Essex for the US!) and bearing in mind you had taken a temporary ownership of the article. I thoight you might appreciate support in your editing, obviously not. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a cheap shot to use AGF here. When you prodded this article it was already established via sources in the article that this band had had 2 top 40 hits, thereby meeting one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC - certainly enough to make PROD unsuitable. You've been here long enough to know that. The MySpace link is clearly to a different band (with completely different members). Perhaps if you didn't insist on making flippant comments every time it might help others to assume that you're being constructive?--Michig (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No cheap shots, my reference to AGF was to your doubts. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a cheap shot to use AGF here. When you prodded this article it was already established via sources in the article that this band had had 2 top 40 hits, thereby meeting one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC - certainly enough to make PROD unsuitable. You've been here long enough to know that. The MySpace link is clearly to a different band (with completely different members). Perhaps if you didn't insist on making flippant comments every time it might help others to assume that you're being constructive?--Michig (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You should assume good faith, as I did in nominating this article. I didn't remove the MySpace link in case I was wrong (bands do leave Essex for the US!) and bearing in mind you had taken a temporary ownership of the article. I thoight you might appreciate support in your editing, obviously not. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're not more notable, unless you've received more coverage in reliable sources than those I've just added to the article (which I doubt) and had more than 2 top 40 hits (which I also doubt). If you have then go ahead. It wouldn't have hurt you to remove the incorrect MySpace yourself. You don't seem to be editing very constructively. --Michig (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, If that's notable I'd better start writing an article about me, because I am more notable -- oops I can't, it would be COI. Oh well, WP will have to live without an article about me! BTW, Good improvements, but check the external links! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- We know that they're brothers from Essex called Mark, Nathan and Kieran Bass, they were discovered in a Birmingham music shop, they have been compared to Hanson, and they had two top 40 hits in the UK [2]. They obviously meet WP:BAND via criterion #2 and we have enough verifiable information for an article. Sorry, but the PROD here was ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)