Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack's Broken Heart

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 of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack's Broken Heart

Fails WP:MUSIC. Local San Diego band, released two independent EPs, no album. Notability stated in article relies on MP3.com "charts" and a local San Diego award. (If you remember the MP3.com charts, you'll remember that they didn't reflect mainstream popularity.) While the article is arguably informative, the subject does not meet ANY of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of bands. -- ChrisB 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete It does fail WP:MUSIC, but this is only a guideline, and they had over 100,000 downloads of a track of their's. Also, a lack of mainstream popularity is not reason for deletion. However, overall, I'd probably still say delete. -- ConDem^Talk 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, kind of bungled what I was getting at with the "mainstream popularity" thing. The MP3.com charts didn't really reflect actual popularity, as bands often found ways to bump their standings (especially given that there was a chart for every conceiveable subgenre). Honestly, that's probably minimal compared to the fact that the MP3.com charts no longer exist and are impossible to verify now (unlike, say, Billboard) and the source of the 100,000 downloads statement is the band's own bio from their website. -- ChrisB 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the band has released an album, gone on a tour, and they also have an allmusic profile [1]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Not to bog this down, but an AMG entry does not designate notability. My friend's band has an AMG entry (and they'll freely admit that they're not notable), as do countless no-name bands. Not to mention the fact that this band's entry has no releases on it. Additionally, it appears the band may not have actually undertaken said US tour - the statement in the Wiki article is verbatim from the band's bio on their website. (A short pull through Google finds record of only southern California tour dates.) -- ChrisB 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per TBC. Royboycrashfan 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks good to me. For great justice. 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neither EP is available on Amazon, virtually zero results on google thus failing google test, no sources are identified outside of 1 city award. Just doesn't seem to qualify as meeting any tests of notability. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability just doesn't seem to meet any tests of being deletion policy! For great justice. 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete that's why we got guidelines :) Eivind^t@c 07:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I know that's a catchphrase of yours, FGJ, but a whopping lot of us are pretty comfy with notability being the primus inter pares of AfD justice, whether or not Wikipedia's yet chiselled the criteria in granite, and you're probably not going to convince any of us to cease AfDing anything solely because it hasn't yet been. Speaking of which, this is a pretty non-notable band. RGTraynor 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not insisting that you follow policy, I simply feel that it's my duty to note it when it's being blatently abused. Of course, if enough people think that every page beginning with 'r' should be deleted, that would be concensus, and the deletions would happen. I would still feel justified in protesting. For great justice. 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good; please do let us know when we blatantly abuse policy. In keeping with that, I look forward to the link you're going to send us saying why following the Wikipedia guideline explicitly stating "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable" constitutes a blatant abuse of Wikipedia policy. RGTraynor 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete their Myspace has few track plays and only 4 today. Hardly a well known band, if all the scene kiddies don't flock to the myspace page. James Kendall [talk] 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. Also, the band is defunct and the article is full of name-drops, suggesting that the band isn't notable. Brian G. Crawford 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TBC. WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a inflexible commandment. It is nigh impossible to be listed in the All Music Guide without achieving some degree of notability. Yes, Wikipedia has far too many articles about "post-hardcore/emo" groups with names like "Jack's Broken Heart" or "Cathy's Last Hairstyle" or "My Afternoon Diary", but this one is at least more notable than most. StarryEyes 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (PS "jack's broken heart" emo -wikipedia garners an impressive 14,700 Google results.)
  • of which 129 are unique. -- Saberwyn 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not "uniqueness" necessarily, it's a matter of being on the same domain. Google only shows the first two results on any domain. So if you have a few thousand results on, say, MySpace, it will only show up as two at first. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TBC. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A city award may be enough, as may be 100 000 downloads. We have space, this isn't a high-school basement bad. -- cmh 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per StarryEyes FloNight ^talk 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per TBC and StarryEyes (odd that Metacrawler.com only returns 67 results). MikeBriggs 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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.