Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Upsidedown

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 to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Upsidedown

The Upsidedown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This is the third or fourth time this article has been created. Author cites only one media mention (Magnet Magazine, no page number or issue information). Still fails WP:BAND. janejellyroll 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of notability. Kai A. Simon 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete and protect unless notability can be asserted. Do not protect. --UsaSatsui 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep. Article now demonstrates notability. See comment below. --UsaSatsui 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can this go through a G4 if it's been recreated numerous times? Speedy Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

recently updated with references and notable facts. Included now are article issues and dates, and other referenced press. still learning wiki and have edited accordingly to avoid speedy deletion. this article is neutral, factual, and referenced.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Upsidedown8 (talk • contribs) 02:36, January 25, 2007 (UTC)

• • But is it notable? That's what the debate is. Please read WP:BAND and show us where it qualifies. --UsaSatsui 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt per G4, possibly G11. Still fails WP:BAND, no citations beyond the Magnet Magazine one. No, saying "it appeared in this TV episode" is not a citation. -- Kesh 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

editing in progress .will reference exact tv episode and pod cast date and more.hold on the speedy delete. notoriety has been asserted and documented. no speedy delete.

• You keep saying that. How has it been asserted? I still can't see how it passes WP:BAND. They've received a few magazine blurbs and been the opening act on a couple of small tours. If you could tell us "This passes because of criteria X", that would help your case. I don't think meeting the criteria for you guys is too far off, so I'm changing my "protect" opinion. Give it time. If you guys are really that good, you'll make it soon enough, and someone else will write the article about you (it's very, very hard to get an article in that's about yourself, see WP:COI. And remember to sign your posts, use the "signature with timestamp" button. --UsaSatsui 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info and feedback. I've read the WP:BAND criteria and improved upon the original, and will continue to try and meet what's expected.Note: The Upsidedown headlined most shows in Portland and Seattle and on tour. 2 of the members of the band were formerly from bands that are on wikipedia. the record was produced by Tony Lash who's also represented on wikipedia.The Out Crowd and The Village Green, also represented on wikipedia are friends and recommended we submit an article. The Dandy Warhols are working with us in the studio to finish our new record.

there are 20 or so write-ups from press around the country, including The Boston Globe, The Nashville Scene, etc. should I reference them all? I don't see huge press detail on other band articles. I think this passes because The Upsidedown is an established working band, has released a record that has gotten good reviews and airplay in west coast markets(kexp-seattle,knrk-portland,littleradio-LA) , and been used on soundtracks to recent television shows. Upsidedown8 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If other band pages don't cite their sources, they need to be edited or deleted as well. For this article, we need notable, reliable sources. The Boston Globe would qualify, so please add that citation. Random appearances on TV shows aren't necessarily notable. Exceptions would be if it were central to the episode, or became a theme througout the series. If there are any reviews of the band or their album in notable publications, that would go a long way towards resolving this. -- Kesh 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, will cite major publications..in progress Upsidedown8 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have read and understand WP:COI. For what it's worth,please note that nowhere in the article am I promoting or linking any of the band's music, products or sites. I've honestly attempted to state facts and cite references to the history of this band.Upsidedown8 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear it. I see you've been attempting to add information, but it's not easy to follow. Make sure you're properly citing the references. Simply saying it was an article in The Boston Globe on X date is not a true citation. -- Kesh 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• ok, now citing article references with external links as best can be displayed...thanks for your patience.Upsidedown8 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the article a bit for you, added a template, some categories...I'm not too good at this stuff yet (if someone wants to cleanup my cleanup, be my guest). In your zeal of adding stuff, things got a bit messy. Much of the information was either condensed down to the template, or really not needed (more than half of it was article quotes...if we really need to see them we can look up the articles). I also threw in a link to your homepage and Reverb's homepage. I believe the sources now establish notability, but I dropped the indy magazine ones, they don't carry a lot of weight (The Globe and The Oregonian do, though). Feel free to add in some history, a discography, what have you...there's more to be done.And even if it still doesn't pass AfD, don't be discouraged. As I said earlier, you'll get there eventually. --UsaSatsui 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The first external link doesn't pull up anything for me. The second (Boston Globe) seems to be a collection of media mentions, but they all seem to be blurbs about upcoming shows that the band is going to be part of with other, frankly more notable, bands. I don't see anything that meets WP:BAND beyond the Magnet mention. The article as you've rewritten it looks much better re: formatting. But I feel like the the original author is just having to stretch too much to make the case for WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not the Stones, no. But I'd call it "multiple non-trivial published works". Just because a band just does opening acts doesn't make them non-notable. I think they're borderline, but I think it qualifies. Oh, I screwed up the links, they're fixed now. --UsaSatsui 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rewrite UsaSatsui! much learned.Upsidedown8 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep After the latest updates, the article looks much better. The references are still somewhat weak, but the article has received a drastic improvement thanks to Upsidedown8. More references would be good, but at the moment I'd say it just barely passes WP:BAND. I'll let other editors improve this article. -- Kesh 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Changing toNeutral The article looks a million times better than it did when the AfD was started--in sources, clarity, and NPOV. I still have my doubts that the sources cited qualify as "non-trivial" mentions, but if the consensus seems to be going in the "keep" direction, I can certainly understand that. janejellyroll 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can I suggest this be re-listed if nobody else chimes in? A lot has changed since the original AfD tag, and I think there needs to be more input on this one. --UsaSatsui 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for everyone's input and help on this article. I added a discography per UsaSatsui's suggestion. Upsidedown8 02:34, 30 January 2007 (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.