Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Bliss

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 Eluchil404 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Bliss

Royal Bliss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Borderline notable band, has released several albums and signed to Capitol Records in June but don't appear to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. In addition, a few paragraphs of the article were copied verbatim from the band's website so I removed them. The unexpurgated revision is here. CIreland 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Some of this is cribbed from their MySpace. They don't seem to be at #36 on the Mediabase chart, but this chart shows they're at #132 (previously #85) with a different song. Billboard doesn't seem to acknowledge their existence, however. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Was leaning weak delete based on article, and then found their CD on sale on Amazon, and several other mainstream references that are not in the article. Major label, CD at mainstream stores, refs from many sites, seem to quality. The article doesn't reflect this, but that doesn't change notability. Pharmboy 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Using either "royal bliss" band or "royal bliss" rock gets you plenty of ghits, but you have to filter through a bit, many places sell the CD, including:
  • At least one article from Deseret News, Over 150 year old daily newspaper of Salt Lake City, UT at http://www.desnews.com [removed broken session info, have to search in archives...]

They are most notable in Utah, but have reached out passed their state borders enough to have fans in several states. Again, the article kinda sucks but the band appears to not. I have never heard of them or heard their music, so I don't have a horse in this race, but they really do seem to meet WP:BAND by touring and putting out CDs as Indys before signing. Pharmboy 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete; the article is a real hash that is difficult to try and pick out the relevant notable bits from. It looks like they're getting some airplay at major stations, but I'm not convinced by the sources from Pharmboy; local newspapers often do cover local bands, and I don't see anything from outside of the SLC area. My own search turned up a few possibles, but most of them were from SLC and needed buying to see the damn things. Mediabase does seem to be a fairly good chart, but I can't see below #30 to confirm the statement in the article. I also can't really confirm that they're with Capitol. I can't confirm they meet any of the WP:MUSIC requirements - I can't tell if their indie releases were on a notable label or not. If someone turns up better sources or clears up any of these issues, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the issue is the threshold. Any one of the references alone wouldn't be enough, but imo, they break the threshold with several things going on. They are more than just a local band (don't have a link, but they got press in LA and elsewhere). They aren't Aerosmith, but they are far above "local only band". I never heard of them before I researched them but they seem to be doing pretty well (and meet wp:music) if they are getting major radio play. Pharmboy 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem there is that a lot of small bands do get airplay at a lot of stations - I know of one band from the little town I used to live in that had play on stations across Canada, but I'd never try to write an article about them - they haven't toured nationally, their coverage has been all local, and they've no notable label releases. We really, really need sources to indicate the impact this band has made, but I haven't found them yet. Several more days to get them, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. new to the Wiki game so I apologize if the article has flaws, I knew that it would. Tried to keep it to just facts and although I have not been able to find on Capital records website that they are signed I do know for a fact that they signed with them in early June and are recording an album with under that label right now which will be releasing soon. I understand the reasons for what you reference as a "weak delete" but they have much more going than a google search shows. I was very surprised to see that they did not have a wikipedia page already when I searched it out and just though, this is what this website is for, someplace that information can be put up and view by people trying to learn more about a subject. Those are my reasons I think you should keep the page, but if it gets deleted now I have confidence that soon there will be a need for it and it will be brought back then. Thanks brentsmith79 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's not intended for spreading information about a "new" band or to get the word out about them, and that's what happens sometimes. My opinion above is based on what I've been able to see. I'd be more than happy to reconsider if someone can point out more references. Alternately, if they do record and release under Capital, and get some reviews and coverage from that, then yes, the article might be better then. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Signing to a major label barely passes notability for bands, but just barely. Realkyhick 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • strong delete - Absolutely no third-party external sources have been added to this article, even though this AfD has been open for days. The band itself is regional, not even continental in scope. If you want to argue from WP:BAND, start adding sources. As it is, this article fails completely. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.: Signed to capitol records [1], [2]. This passes WP:MUSIC. Sancho 03:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I also added multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. I just realized that simply being signed to a major record label doesn't establish notability: the band has to release an album under that label. However, the sources that I added should establish the notability now. Sancho 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that this passes WP:MUSIC - they only signed to Capitol in June - all their albums were released prior to that. Which criterion of WP:MUSIC, specifically, do you believe they satisfy? Also, the references are good, but they are all local coverage which limits their ability to be used to establish notability. CIreland 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This is criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. Criteria 1 does give three exceptions, but local newspapers aren't one of them. All of the sources are reliable, independent, and are whole articles covering the subject, not just passing mentions. Sancho 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as having been signed on by Capitol records, they are notable. Bearian 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, band seems to be somewhat notable; they are also signed to a major record label. --musicpvm 18:58, 10 August 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.