Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistle Thrush (band)

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistle Thrush (band)

Mistle Thrush (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not sure what gives this band more notability than the billions of others. A quote in Boston Globe may sound weighty but they cover local bands weekly if not daily. This is wikipedia not MySpace. Toonot 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is a relatively well-sourced article. I find that it meets WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Evb-wiki. WP:BAND only needs one of its criteria met, and this band meets two:
    • been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: check the references section for articles in the Boston Globe, Phoenix, and Weekly Dig (and see the talk page for another feature from the Globe that I recently accessed but hadn't incorporated into the article yet), plus their All Music Guide entry in "External links"
    • released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels: while Bedazzled isn't a mega-major indie, they were around for over ten years and released albums by many small-yet-notable bands (mostly goth and shoegaze). Egg Records seems to be an unknown indie label but it was in fact bankrolled by Elektra Records, when the indie craze hit in the mid-'90s (reference from The Phoenix).
(disclosure: I have heavily edited the article in question, and created the articles for the band's albums). Closenplay 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure on this myself. I went through the links provided in the article; some of them are minimal mentions of the band, others are indeed full-length pieces, and a couple are broken. I'd be more comfortable with "multiple, non-trivial" mentions if there were some references from outside of Boston; as it is, it looks like the band was known in its own area, and didn't really get beyond Boston. One of the interviews describes Egg Records as being the band's own label, and I don't find much other than the mention in the Phoenix about it being a "shadow" label; Bedazzled seems a bit dodgy too. If someone can show me some links from outside of Boston, indications of national tours, etc., I'd give this some more consideration, but for now, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the band meets the notability criteria. There's nothing in the notability criteria which states that they have to have coverage from different regions of the world, just that they have to have coverage from reliable sources. This article's well written (perhaps excluding the "notable artists they've played with" section) and referenced, and I see no reason it should be deleted. - Zeibura Talk 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the criteria are clearly outlined and this page does not meet them. You are opening the floodgates. Poster above cited two and they are simply not true.
    • released two or more albums on a major label - they did not. or one of the more important indie labels Important indie labels = discord, subpop, matador, 4AD, taang!, SST, saddle creek, tommy boy, priority... the list goes on but does not include bedazzled. To say so is some major heavy favoritism by a mod and totally sucks. Egg is the bands own label!
    • been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable NON-TRIVIAL... the mentions in the boston rags are the definition of trivial.
At the very least, strike some of the supporting album pages. As I said this is not myspace.com Toonot 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if you doubt the statement in the Phoenix article that Egg was bankrolled by a major label ("about three years ago, when they were secretly aligned to a major label (their last album… came out on Egg, a "ghost indie" imprint that was quietly financed by Elektra)… Executives were sniffing around the band, and hints were dropped about moving them… up to Elektra proper and giving the big push")—an article written by someone who wrote the book on record collecting (literally)—Egg is certainly not the band's own label. The band was in Boston, the label in Indianapolis. The only thing I can find that Tony Fox might be referring to above is "now available on MT's new label, Egg Records", which I guess could be misconstrued. But considering Egg reissued Lisa Germano's first album four years prior to the sole MT release on that label, it just doesn't follow logically. And if you consider the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Phoenix "rags", I don't know what else to say. Closenplay 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As for deleting the album pages, WP:BAND says if the band's notable, the albums are notable. Closenplay 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets several WP:BAND criteria. History on web site mentions some major touring, which would give them yet another claim to notability. Capmango 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly meets the central criteria of WP:Band. A1octopus 13:00, 13 June 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.