Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Pending (3rd)

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. Fram (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still Pending

Still Pending (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy Delete and Salt. Vanity, NN, fails WP:BAND, re-created deleted article. All independent sources are from local Portland newspapers. Band is also unsigned... this makes them a local band whose notability is that its members are kids. EndlessDan 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 and salt per nom. Tagged for A7; doesn't assert notability in any way. Note to deleting admin: Please see that the pics are deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete, didn't catch those sources on the first scan through! This is why we dont' edit when half asleep. Anyway, some of the sources look okay, but beyond that I'm not totally sold on the notability here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Sorry for changing my !vote twice, but on closer examination, there do seem to be enough reliable sources for this band to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I just googled up (without checking article refs) and found a few interesting links: found reviews at http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/features/story.php?story_id=117875149166012100 (local paper) plus http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?vid=2431 and http://www.purevolume.com/stillpendingor. One is a local, but in combination with the others, seems to establish enough credibility to be notable. Pharmboy (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another local article. I would disqualify PureVolume because any musician or band can create free bio and place it on the site. And boysoloist.com appears to be the same deal. Those sites are as credible as a MySpace page. Band does not pass any criteria for musicians and ensembles per WP:band.--EndlessDan 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article was nominated two other times for deletion. The first time was a speedy and it was overturned. The second was an AFD and it was ruled as a Keep. There is clear notability in this article, it has clear references and has passed the notability criteria in the past. Stampsations (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Above and beyond the clear consensus of Keep established at the previous AfD for the recreated article, the article as it stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I am not sure if a salt is necessary but I wouldn't object to it as the article has been recreated. As for the previous nominations, they are not a test to be "passed" and the fact that the article was not deleted previously only means there was not sufficient consensus at the time. It is for that reason that articles can be renominated in the first place. As for the speedy deletion being overturned, that means absolutely nothing. If you look at the criteria for speedy deletion, you will see that they are very strict, and that MOST articles that could qualify for deletion should not be speedily deleted. In fact, the only things speedy deletions come into play for is when an article doesn't even claim notability. Claiming notability at all, without a source, and regardless of the legitimacy of the claim, is supposed to negate speedy. One self published CD and an appearance in a children's theater production does not equate to notability.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the article has not been recreated. It was reinstated after an improper speedy deletion - you stated yourself that the speedy was overturned - this does not constitute a re-creation. The second AfD decision was Keep, which means that there was sufficient concensus to retain the article as opposed to insufficient concensus to delete it, as you stated (I guess it's a cup half-full vs. half-empty perspective). Since the article passed the notability criteria in the past and there has been significant additional notability added since that time, there should be no reason to re-nominate it for deletion. Your statement about "one self-published CD and an appearance in a children's theater production" really has nothing to do with the band's notability. Industry sponsorships (Sabian, Mapex, Ampeg), NAMM spokesmanship, national TV appearances and production of a CD single by Grammy-winning producers Tim James (musician) and Antonina Armato does seem to indicate that the band is, in fact, notable. Please note that user Ten Pound Hammer, who actually made this 3rd nomination for AfD has now changed his position to Weak Keep, which, to me indicates that this article should never have been nominated for AfD to begin with. Stampsations (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I created this AfD. And I still cannot find where this band passes WP:BAND, per Criteria for musicians and ensembles or Albums and songs.--EndlessDan 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The band's exposure in national and significant regional media outlets lends credibility under general notability guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:11, 17 January 2008 (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.