Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe byrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Joe byrne

Article about a newly formed band which has yet to release anything or perform in public. Inter 21:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This band has made several releases and has charted on every occasion. Deletion in this case is totally unjustified, especially seeing as the site makes a mention of their support for a Tsunami relief fundraiser.
The band has made more than a dozen recordings, all of which have been released into the public domain. The fact that they have yet to perform live is of no consequence to their remaining on Wikipedia.
  • If the anon user can provide notable evidence, I'll vote to keep. If not, delete. Burden of proof time. Khanartist 22:23, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
What sort of evidence is valid as proof? How famous must a band be to be deemed worthy of its own page on Wikipedia?
  • The band plays its much anticipated first gig on the 29th January 2005 Firstly, this is POV - who's to say it's "much anticipated"? Secondly, the band is not yet notable - notability would generally involve having released music into the charts, or at least having had some kind of reputation from live performances. Come back when you're famous. Delete Smoddy | Talk 22:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The band has charted on several occasions and is gaining publicity in the local and regional music and regular press. The band has already had an article and two reviews in the NME (New Musical Express) as well as local papers such as the Journal, Shields Gazette etc.
Also, we can all do without sarcastic, facetious comments such as 'come back when you're famous'.
My comment was not meant in any kind of facetious way. My point was a totally serious one - the band are not yet famous (if you can prove me wrong with some references, feel free), and are thus not yet worthy of a Wikipedia article. I have no problem with famous or noteworthy bands receiving pages, but this page (which I think reads like a vanity) is about a band that is (all but unknown. If and when the band is famous, you can have a page. 'til then, no. Still delete. Smoddy | Talk 17:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If they've released music then the article should be edited to reflect that and point to the released music. As it stands the most notable thing in the article is that they've never played live. -- ckape (talk) 22:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete for the burden of proof reason given by Khanartist. (BTW to the anonymous respondent, please sign your comments otherwise I don't think they even count as a vote. I might be wrong. Use four ~ symbols in a row to do so. I believe you can still vote even if you aren't registered - someone please correct me if that's wrong- in which case your IP number will just come up.) 23skidoo 22:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Khanartist to delete unles anon cites some sources: newspaper article, chart listing, etc. Also, anon comments are suspect at best due to risk of POV conflict with wiki concepts. Johntex 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
POV has been removed. What now?
  • Still recommend deletion until notability has been shown. DreamGuy 23:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Note that searching nme.com reveals no hits for Joe Byrne, and neither does googling. The article currently does not claim why this band should be of interest to anyone other than the people in it, nor is there any independent confirmation even of the band's existence. Thus, it is not verifiable. Tuf-Kat 23:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It turns out that there's a singer/songwriter named Joe Byrne [1] who has been playing gigs for many years, and has released 2 cassette albums and 1 CD album. He's obscure to me, but based on the article as it is, he is more notable than this new British band.

I way want to keep this one, but where are the citations?? Delete unless some evidence of those charted recordings and national press articles shows up. Wyss 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The singer-songwriter looks notable enough to me, and googling indicates some policeman involved with the Kelly Gang (whatever that is) who gets a lot of hits and may be notable. I agree with Wyss that a band supposedly covered in NME, with charting recordings, should get a number of google hits... I don't know how many, but let's start with one. To be frank, at this point, I don't believe this band exists. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tuf-Kat 23:45, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed my comment could be construed as putting words in Wyss' mouth, as he didn't say all that I said I agreed with him on. This is because I revised my comment considerably before saving, and didn't notice that I was agreeing with more than he said. We are nevertheless in agreement on the need for citations. Tuf-Kat 08:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
And indeed, even a few Google hits showing some hint of these "charted" songs would be enough to change my vote. Wyss 09:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no record of this group charting anywhere on the Top 40 charts database which is fairly reliable. The fact that they are yet to play their first concert where people pay to see them also makes me believe that they are notable. Tuf-kat referred to Joe Byrne in relation to the Kelly Gang. Joe Byrne was known as the lieutenant of the Kelly gang the most famous of the Australian bushranging gangs. He drafted the Jerilderie Letter which Peter Carey based his book True History of the Kelly Gang which won the 2001 Booker Prize. Orlando Bloom played him in a 2003 film Ned Kelly. I have created a page for Joe Byrne (bushranger). If we decide to delete this page, I would like to move Joe Byrne (bushranger) to Joe Byrne. If we keep it, I suggest we move the band to Joe Byrne (band) and change Joe Byrne to a disambiguation page. Currently, I vote to Delete and move Joe Byrne (bushranger) to Joe Byrne.Capitalistroadster 08:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with the move, as this Joe Byrne sounds definitely notable. The singer-songwriter seems ok for an article, but the bushranger sounds much more important and thus a disambig block would be fine (i.e. not a disambig page at Joe Byrne). Tuf-Kat 08:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)