This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Notable band [1], [2] (did not add that citation) In terms of youtube which I know is not RS [3], [4], over 600k views (this is strictly for statistical purposes) band is clearly up and coming has varies reliable sources which I have yet to add after all Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, contracted by Stone'd Records, please afd with attention of Wikipedia Project music if you choose. A cited article with RS does not fall under the criteria of speedy deletion) --Valoemtalkcontrib22:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the page because the BBC news story was just enough to keep it from being speedyable. The problem is that overall the sources here don't really show notability as a whole to save it from an AfD. Here's a rundown of the sources:
Sources
[5] They attended Falmouth, so this is pretty much a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) because of that. FU has a reason to talk about the band and promote it since it reflects well on them.
[6] This is their website, which is another primary source. These can't show notability regardless of where they're posted.
[7] This kind of falls under what we wouldn't be able to use as a reliable source. It's what we'd consider to be a non-notable blog-esque type website.
[8] This, along with the BBC Radio 1 bit, was what helped keep the article as far as speedy goes. It's not very in-depth, so I don't think that this would keep it on that basis alone.
[9] Them performing on BBC helped give them enough of an assertion of notability to save it from speedy. If it was just the first link then maybe not, but the thing about speedys is that it only has to give the assertion of notability.
[10] If this was by a staff member then it might have been usable, but this seems to be a random user review. They do seem to have an editor, but we'd have to konw more about their editorial oversight before we can really count them as a reliable source.
[11] This is just a routine database type entry. If AllMusic had reviewed them then we could use it, but just a database type entry won't give notability.
All in all, unless there are better sources out there, this probably wouldn't last via an AfD. I'll try to see what I can find, but I might nominate it myself. The thing to remember is that just existing doesn't give a band notability. A band would have to have multiple releases (at least two) through a major label to pass on that count and while being associated with a notable performer can help with notability, it doesn't really guarantee it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)05:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The label doesn't seem big or major enough to give notability. Joss Stone is notable, but her launching a record label doesn't automatically make it a major enough player in the indie world to pass on that guideline for bands. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)06:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected it to the label. To be honest, there just isn't enough coverage to merit the band having its own article at this point in time. In the future? Maybe. Right now they just don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)06:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this band is no longer active, and hasn't been for a while.
Now I'm not sure of how exactly to get this info for wikipedia, but this is just a notice for anyone interested in adding to or editing this page, since as far as I know, they split up not too long after releasing King in a Rocking Chair.
