Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchors For Arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Petros471 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anchors For Arms

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a band, just like all other acticles on bands on Wikipedia. They have 3 EP releases and an upcoming album in 2007 on Lobster Records, that has great sources for promotion and is one of the bigger indie lables. No reason to delete. They deserve a right on wikipedia like everyone else! AWilhelmPetter 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't dig up anything that would suggest any notability. Aplomado talk 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete At this point I can find nothing that shows me they are notable. DrunkenSmurf 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment MUSIC says notable if released 2 or more albums on a notable record company, and theirs both has a page, and according to that page, seems to have released things from some other notable groups. Seems to me this satisfies "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Not saying keep just yet cause I don't really know anything about them, the label, or anything, but it appears to me to qualify. If I could ask the above why they felt it did not? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Keep in mind that WP:MUSIC is a guidline not a hardfast rule and editors may look for more than just meeting a part of this guideline when making their decision. In this case, it should be noted that the group has not yet released an album on Lobster Records, they released the prior ones by themselves as far as I can tell. In addition, I personally look for independent reviews of released albums and/or of a performance. Currently this band's album will not be "dropping" until next year and their current tour has a bunch of TBA's as to where they will be playing next. Based on these factors I feel they are not yet notable, although I certainly wish them luck. DrunkenSmurf 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable signee on a notable label, both reported on relevant sites, national tour (hey, we have Barbara Streisand on the site, and she doesn't even tour!). ;) Parsssseltongue 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I cannot find that Lobster Records is a major label or even an Indie with a notable roster. It should probably be deleted as non-notable too. Can some links be provided to support this claim? -Thanks Nv8200p talk 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Lobster Records has Yellowcard on the roster. DrunkenSmurf 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like they were on Lobster. Article says they are on Capitol -Nv8200p talk 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Over_It used to be on Lobster Records. They would be nowhere without Lobster Records and look where they are now. I know the guys in Anchors For Arms. They have written 8 songs and will be recording a debute full length in September and it will be released on Lobster Records in early 2007. This is a keep! AWilhelmPetter 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Read the article more carefully. They are "currently signed to Lobster Records". Their previous releases are all listed as "Independant", which can mean anything from myspace to selling CDs out of the trunk of their car. It does not appear that they in fact have released anything on a major label yet. Many bands sign with record companies, but end up not releasing an album, or they do and it sells 37 copies. Doesn't appear they're there yet. Fan1967 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not looking to argue... just want it on the record: Wiki editors/admin need to loosen their policy on record releases. The business is very different now. Maybe I'll write an essay on it sometime. :) In the meantime... and though I'm certainly an [eventualist]... the fact that they're signed, as well as their touring, is notable enough for MY vote. Parsssseltongue 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, barely any useful information in the article. --Coredesat 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Lobster Records is big in the southwest/california; Indie releases that result in label signing is good enough for me (and I'm a bandeletionist) Teke 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't really see much that they're doing notably, other than the semi-notable label as referenced above. --Alphachimp talk 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that only relying an a assumed "2 record minimum rule" is not a good idea, but this band's only claim to fame appears to be being signed with Lobster Records. They've not yet toured or released anything with a label, the work they released themselves doesn't seem to have gotten any awards and they fail every other WP:MUSIC criterion there is. I don't think there's anything else notable in the article that warrant us to step away from the criteria listed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:46, 21 June 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.