Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrows bad seeds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Tag or no tag, this discussion bas been open long enough. However, I don't like rewarding the constant removal of the AFD tag from the article so anybody is free to renominate this article for deletion at any time. If it's renominated then the AFD tag needs to stay on the article until the AFD is closed by an administrator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrows bad seeds

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

Some coverage in very minor places (blogs, alt papers), but no other reliable sources to meet criteria at WP:BAND. Band is signed to a tiny label ("local independent record label" according to this article); appeared on actual TV recently, otherwise there's very little coverage. tedder (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have no affiliation with this article, and I do think it needs work; however, I do believe it is notable. Their appearance on the Late Late Show is very notable (I have added a source). I also think their appearance at areas such as the House of Blues is notable.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close Discussion It has been 5 days since the last post, and a consensus has clearly not been reached. This should be removed.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that statement continues to say WP:BLP1E. In other words, if the band is only notable for one appearance on one TV show, it's probably not sufficient. tedder (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, your source covers notability for a single person, not for a band. Second, your reasoning refers to one appearance in news media, not any tv show. This band has been invited to the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and they have also performed at the House of Blues. WP:BAND states that if performing on TV is their only claim they are not notable; however, their other claims to notability compound on their TV appearance.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion There is clearly not consensus that this article should be deleted.Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Maxxbeach has continually been deleting the AfD notice from the article, which may somewhat explain the lack of response in this AfD. I'm also somewhat disturbed by User:Ryan Vesey's eagerness to close this as no consensus, although I'm going to AGF and chalk it up to simple eagerness. That being said, Delete per lack of reliable independent coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The AfD tag was present on the article from 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC) to 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC), and mostly continuously after 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC). It would be appropriate to consider this one to have been listed since 15 March rather than 9 March. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concerned that I want the discussion to be closed. The afd has been up for two weeks with almost no discussion. I am fairly certain that discussions are supposed to be closed within 7 days. I am also fairly certain that there needs to be consensus that it should be deleted; if there is no consensus the page stays up.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.