Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol years

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 was Keep. PeaceNT 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitol years

Capitol years (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The notability of the subject is claimed, but not yet verified, through coverage in a.o. the Philadelphia Weekly, Rolling Stone, the Boston Globe and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • While maintaining a 'no opinion,' I believe Aecis was simply asking you to expand on your contribution. Google hits can provide sources, but only you (as a user), can provide backing to your decisions. the_undertow talk 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. An AFD is not a vote, but a discussion. The closing admin needs to take the weight of all the arguments in consideration, but for that, he or she needs to know the arguments. Simply stating that a subject meets or doesn't meet our notability guidelines doesn't explain to the closing admin how the subject meets or doesn't meet the guideline, and it doesn't give the article's author the opportunity to improve the article, because it doesn't become clear what might need fixing. AecisBrievenbus 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that The Capitol Years is a common album title for compilations of Capitol Records artists such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. Consequently, Googling this band's name yields many unrelated hits. --Metropolitan90 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately I cannot find any sources to back up the claims in the article. The only review I read admitted they have little to no radio play, so I do not see how they fit WP:BAND criteria. the_undertow talk 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Unable to find source article detailing little to no radio play. Please cite.--Clintflint 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In any case, it doesn't matter: you realise that a group only has to satisfy one of the band criteria, not all of them, right? David Mestel(Talk) 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think that there was any indication that anyone thought otherwise, was there? If it was my mentioning of radio play, the reason I brought it up specifically, was because I felt it was the only criteria that was going to have a chance. Clintflint - the lack of radio support was from this. the_undertow talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. See my comment below. David Mestel(Talk) 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Have been played on World Cafe, one of the country's most popular music programs, syndicated by National Public Radio. Online sources indicate the band charted on CMJ Top 100 which is a leading indicator of national airplay. Sources also verify top singles add according to FMQB.com which helps track modern radio programming. Darkbread23 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: What sources? In order for this article to be kept, it needs to have verifiable citations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Source for MTV usage [1]. Source for radio charting: [[2]]as well as [3] where they chart above notables.--Clintflint 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable band. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Band of the day in Spin. [4] Appeared on soundtrack for Richard Linklater's Fast Food Nation. [5]--Clintflint 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Apparently multiple US tours and tours of UK [6], Spain, Israel should confirm notable under WP:MUSIC [7]--Sultanlade 12:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't want to be a process wonk, but seriously guys, read WP:BAND. They meet criterion one (the most important) with this and this, and criterion four with this. I do think the article should be re-written to read less like an advertisement, though. David Mestel(Talk) 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A process wonk is what was needed here. I used your sourcing, and cleanup up the article a bit. It does pass WP:BAND at this time. the_undertow talk 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This band has gained some notability in the national media. However, the article needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. AlphaEta 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sincere care to help? I've got some time before the g/f gets off work. I'm giving up surf time for this! the_undertow talk 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: needs references and balanced perspective but otherwise OK. Deramisan 22:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly a keep. this band has several sources and has proven to be on a National Television show which is documented. Someone could legitimately search for this on their own and it doesn't seem to be shameless self-promotion to me. If this is deleted, there are certainly a lot of other band pages that should be. I think they are past the line of "non-notable local band" Barsportsunlimited 23:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The spin.com link references the Philadelphia Inquirer award. Notability and verifiability hurdles cleared. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:BAND. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, tours meet the MUSIC criteria. John Vandenberg 14:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the commenters above, meets WP:MUSIC based on touring alone. Yamaguchi先生 07:22, 28 May 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.