346:
of the other WP:BAND criteria - that, say, they must have "a record certified gold or higher", or have "been placed on rotation nationally", or "has won/been nominated for a major music award". I know it says only one of the criteria are needed, but we should really view the first in the light of the
259:
This article needs a major rewrite to remove the PR hype, but they may just scrape by on the coverage. I disagree that all the sources are unreliable or that the coverage is trivial. Some of the articles are online, but they are from notable UK national newspapers and also appear in their print
327:
point 12, a 1/2 hour or longer broadcast. The coverage this band has recieved is not the equivalent of this. The band may well one day be notable - in fact, calling them 'the hottest downloads' might be evidence of this - but I don't think they are yet.
433:
indicates that singles can be certified gold for 500,000 paid downloads, just like they can be certified gold for 500,000 physical singles. So gold "records" are still going to be issued, and they will still be meaningful accomplishments.
384:
I always check the nominator's contributions in these discussions, and I must say, I found that odd too. It's highly unusual for a new user's first major edit to be nomination of an article for deletion and only
155:
366:
Do I perhaps detect a conflict here between the nominator DaveBury135 (whose only edits have been in connection with this article) and a band from
Radcliffe, a place not far removed from the town of Bury?
210:
416:
I hate to say this, but in this era of iTunes and downloads, it might be time to review the 'gold' criterion. By the way, what the heck does "been placed on rotation nationally" mean?
342:
I'd add to that - if we were to say that (say) a small review on the regional outskirts of the BBC website counts as enough to prove notability, it'd be out of keeping with almost
110:
347:
rest. Nearly any local band could get a page if you just need a review on a (admittedly reliable) website. It looks like
Knowledge (XXG) sets the bar higher than that.
149:
115:
17:
394:
83:
78:
285:
87:
186:
Non-notable - lists only trivial coverage or unreliable sources, ie online articles for which no print equivalent exists. (see
277:
70:
170:
137:
498:
36:
323:
are huge websites, it's not particularly notable to have an article on one of those sites. Surely the comparator is
446:'Rotation nationally' - I'd assume this means on some national radio station's playlist? Might be wrong though.
497:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
438:
248:
131:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
483:
455:
441:
425:
406:
402:
376:
356:
337:
307:
303:
251:
227:
199:
127:
52:
288:). I've also found another article that appeared in the print version of a well-known UK regional paper,
352:
195:
236:
because the article does indeed include reliable sources, namely online articles from the web sites of
348:
191:
451:
333:
290:
267:
177:
435:
295:
245:
163:
430:
74:
470:
421:
398:
372:
299:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
324:
187:
272:
390:
143:
447:
329:
477:
222:
466:
66:
58:
417:
368:
320:
262:
237:
104:
218:
469:
is met. Oh, and AFD is not the place to discuss the criteria set at
278:"The hottest downloads: Black Jackson, Ciara ft Justin Timberlake"
491:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
316:
281:
241:
465:
The sources already included in the article indicate that
211:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
100:
96:
92:
162:
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
501:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
244:which are specifically about this band. --
205:
209:: This debate has been included in the
286:"Review:Black Jackson at the Witchwood"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
296:"Future is Bright for Black Jackson"
284:is a notable and reliable source (
24:
315:While undoubtedly reliable, the
291:The Lancashire Evening Telegraph
1:
389:20 minutes after joining WP.
484:13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
456:17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
442:17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
426:16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
407:06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
397:has edited before as an IP?
377:01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
53:07:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
357:22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
338:20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
308:19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
252:18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
228:17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
200:17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
518:
431:RIAA certification#Digital
494:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
268:"New Band of the Day"
391:Assuming good faith
44:The result was
230:
214:
509:
496:
280:). Likewise the
273:The Sunday Times
226:
215:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
505:
499:deletion review
492:
480:
260:versions, e.g.
217:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
515:
513:
504:
503:
487:
486:
476:
460:
459:
458:
444:
436:Metropolitan90
411:
410:
409:
361:
360:
359:
310:
254:
246:Metropolitan90
231:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
514:
502:
500:
495:
489:
488:
485:
482:
479:
472:
468:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
443:
440:
437:
432:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
365:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:
269:
265:
264:
258:
255:
253:
250:
247:
243:
239:
235:
232:
229:
224:
220:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:Black Jackson
64:
63:
60:
59:Black Jackson
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
493:
490:
474:
462:
413:
399:Voceditenore
386:
381:
363:
343:
312:
300:Voceditenore
289:
271:
263:The Guardian
261:
256:
238:The Guardian
233:
206:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
395:DaveBury135
349:DaveBury135
192:DaveBury135
150:free images
448:Spike iron
393:, perhaps
330:Spike iron
473:. Thanks
223:talk page
471:WP:MUSIC
321:Guardian
240:and the
111:View log
418:Peridon
414:Comment
382:Comment
369:Peridon
364:Comment
325:WP:BAND
188:WP:BAND
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
475:sparkl
439:(talk)
313:Delete
249:(talk)
128:Google
88:delete
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
467:WP:N
463:Keep
452:talk
422:talk
403:talk
373:talk
353:talk
334:talk
304:talk
257:Keep
234:Keep
219:J04n
207:Note
196:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
48:. ˉˉ
46:Keep
344:all
317:BBC
298:)
282:BBC
270:),
242:BBC
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
481:sm
454:)
434:--
424:)
405:)
387:10
375:)
355:)
336:)
306:)
213:.
198:)
190:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
50:╦╩
478:!
450:(
420:(
401:(
371:(
351:(
332:(
319:/
302:(
294:(
276:(
266:(
225:)
221:(
216:—
194:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.