Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willard (band)

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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willard (band)

• Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one album (according to the article) which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Amazon has only the one album and only used. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good article, part of the extremely inflential Seattle grunge scene, media coverage in the Seattle Times. Kappa 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see no link to verify media coverage in the Seattle times. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough for an article. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We need this article if we want to have encyclopedic coverage of the Seattle grunge movement, one of the most important events in rock of the last 15 years. Willard were a part of this, its members have been in numerous other bands that have pages here (Tad, Hog Molly, etc.) and their album got major media attention in the Seattle Times and Chicago Tribune. -- JJay 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To be fair, the Chicago one looks like an album review. Some magazines put out dozens of reviews a day - it doesn't make the bands worthy of an encyclopedia entry. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It was an album review. If there was something unclear about my comment, I'd be glad to clarify further. -- JJay 02:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's nice that everyone is into this Seattle grunge movement but it seems like there's a need to have one all-encompassing Seattle Grunge history article that captures this endless legion of one-hit or one-album wonders that supposedly rocked every party in Seattle for six months fifteen years ago. It doesn't seem necessary to list how every individual band was "part of starting the movement" only to have various band members "lose interest" and "move on to other projects" or have major labels drop them because of "turmoil within the band", etc., etc. Boring and redundant... Just my opinion anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with having an article about the Seattle Grunge history and linking to bands that meet the various notability guidelines like this one, while putting short blurbs on the less notable ones in the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:MUSIC. Stifle 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa, but cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Jack Endino is a notable producer, first of all; any band he produced deserves mention. They were covered in two major high-circulation newspapers, one outside of their region. They have an All Music Guide entry. Ultimately, they're a footnote to pop history, even to grunge history, but a worthwhile footnote nonetheless. Raggaga 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the two reasons above. DeckardCain 23:01, 2 February 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.