Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pale Pacific

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 but cleanup. There's more than one album, as the group was previously known under another name. Participants also unearthed reviews by Rolling Stone Magazine and other notable sources and multiple news reports. Including these during a cleanup would easily establish notability. I've discounted the opinion of Hottentot since merely existing is not a valid reason for inclusion.

[edit] The Pale Pacific

The Pale Pacific (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested speedy. Indie band with one full length album according to allmusic. I thought they met A7 based on the article, but it was contested, so I bring it here for discussion Samir धर्म 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 does not satisfy WP:BAND or WP:NOTE does not WP:CITE sources. Vry few non-youtube, myspace, blog, and lyric site hits. Even fewer when you remove sites, like overstock.com, that are trying to sell thier music. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please keep in mind: "failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion" from WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that I never said it was, thank you. - wtfunkymonkey 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless article can be expanded to show notability and verifiability. I could only find one independent published article on them (Seattle Indie press). JRHorse 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search finds plenty on them. http://www.google.com/musica?aid=ieFBIyehgAG&sa=X&oi=music&ct=result They're on the iTunes Store, what else do you guys want?

Take a look at WP:MUSIC and see if there's any criteria there that they meet.--Kchase T 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Does this include online reviews? I suppose those would be trivial, but if they aren't just Google them, and there are a bunch. They meet criteria 3 and 4. They aren't an unknown local band; they've been on tours all over the US, and they're quite popular around Bellingham and Seattle. You want to delete the article just because they aren't one of the more popular bands?Gert2 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I declined the speedy. I think there's enough independent coverage in the press section on their website that they might actually meet the criterion for non-trivial published sources. What do you all think?--Kchase T 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment"Many of us who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an article here. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." The article doesn't break any rules, and it doesn't hurt to have it. I'd like it to stay, so the question is, do you really want it NOT to be kept? Gert2 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Quoting MUSIC is old news for most of us. I think this is your better argument. Do you know who released these CDs? Was it a major label or an important indie? Some of them were released by SideCho, which probably isn't an important indie. I think this Rolling Stone review, and write-ups (albeit often brief ones) in Seattle Weekly, Spin, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Amazon's review do more to establish notability.--Kchase T 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think they fail WP:NOTE at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless concrete evidence is produced that the band passes WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Kchase02's comment is enough to satisfy WP:NOTE, and their press and shows pages at thepale.com are enough for WP:MUSIC.
  • Delete As per WP:NOTE. Annamonckton 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep clearly notable, as a published band. Besides, inst this supposed to be an ecyclopedia? Theyre a band, they clearly exist, so they should be in. --Hotentot 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    — Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.
  • keep per Hotentot - also a few of the early deletes say only a few articles here and there. Well thats just it they are there. Its not delete there are no articles. Its delete just a few. Those few are independent, and verifiable. The band is notable. Wiki's not paper.--Xiahou 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per all relevant above. band is notable Guyanakoolaid 10:22, 2 January 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.