518:
521:
309:
You must allow me the benefit of playing on home ground here. I read norwegian newspapers daily, and I can assure you; there has not been any "What will be their next project together"-discussions in the media, and there is no common understanding in Norway that they now form an established duo. They
714:
The article doesn't claim there is a long-term partnership, it simply describes the notable 2009 collaboration. The product was a multi-platinum selling album, attributed to "Sissel & Odd", that surely must have received sustained coverage. Again, rather than encouraging someone to find better
306:
Yes, I agree that some collaborations do warrant their own articles. But only if it proven by reliable sources that there is a collaboration that goes beyond that one album. You might have misunderstood my argument: It is of course possible for etablished artists to form new duos, but there is no
634:
I like this example as it clarifies the deletion rationale for me - thank you! However, whilst I more clearly see why there is a case for deletion, I remain of the opinion that the case for keep is much stronger. There are some good reasons why this particular comparison does not sway
328:
Which
Knowledge (XXG) guideline or policy requires that the collaboration "goes beyond one album"? What we have here is (a) a collaboration that is notable (unlike some of your other examples) - as shown by the fact it produced a number one album
217:. The deletion rationale is non-sensical; indeed, it is common for established artists to come together and form a new band, temporarily or permanently - there is no established principal that we ignore it. For examples, compare
283:
You presumably agree that some collaborations, such as Gnarls
Barkley, do warrant their own articles (maybe you do not - your deletion rationale is that established artists forming duos have no inherent notability - but whether
168:
367:
Concerning the inclusion guidelines: Should it not be responsibility to those in favour of keep to supply the article with good references? My claim still stands: We need sources to prove that this is a duo.
486:
The purpose of that rule is IMHO to make one hit wonders notable. There is no doubt that both Ms
Kyrkjebø and Mr Nordstoga are notable in their own right; the matter of this discussion is whether they
243:
It is indeed "common for established artists to come together and form a new band"; but that is not the case here, and there a no reliable sources to the idea that this one record collaberation is the
307:
proof that there has been formed a new duo in this case; all we can see is a one album collaberation between two major norwegian artists, very much like the Cash collaberation projects i refered to.
363:
in the lead in-sentence, and there are no sources for that. IMHO being a duo means that a) the two agree to define themselves as a exclusive duo for a period of time, b) perform or record together.
418:
129:
757:
In that case, change the word 'duo' to 'duet' or 'collaboration', which would be a far more constructive approach than trying to get an article deleted on grounds of semantics.
162:
75:
249:
My second argument is that the existance of the article is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of artist collaberation. Some comparitions: Johnny Cash has made
396:
310:
made one record together in 2009, and march 2010 was the last mention of the term "Sissel & Odd" in the papers, that was in connection with the norwegians grammy
778:; agree with Orland. Individually they may be notable, but not as a duo. Their collaborative effort (e.i. the album) may be notable, so just move the info to
554:
Of course there was media coverage; these two are norwegian megastars, and they made a bestselling record together. But that is not the issue. In the case of
288:
do or not - consensus is that they do), and I agree with you that (obviously) there are other collaborations that do not. The question is, on which side does
365:
I fail to se the difference between this collaboration and my examples; at least two of the three mentioned Cash collaborations reached the charts.
729:
I am trying to delete this article because it is describing something unexisting, and therefore without any sources. The difference between a
683:
article. The album and single are not simply attributed to the two individual artists, a new name for the duo has aparrently been created.
558:
the article explicitely says that they "formed the duo". That is not the case here. The only raison d'etre for this article is claim that
102:
97:
106:
183:
17:
150:
715:
sources and develop the article, we have an editor trying to delete an article completely. The resons for deletion are erroneous.
89:
656:
Whilst we were citing some examples before to show a general trend; one specific case is not really indicative of anything, per
292:
duo fall? As it had a number one album and top twenty single in Norway, I don't think there is any doubt that it is notable.
144:
819:
40:
459:
266:
247:. My first argument is therefore lack of sources to the idea that their collaberation is the forming of a "new band".
140:
447:. They might be next Simon & Garfunkel, but a short collaboration is not encyclopedic on its own... yet. --
190:
692:
477:
346:
297:
250:
234:
800:
766:
746:
724:
696:
629:
607:
575:
549:
503:
481:
464:
432:
410:
377:
350:
323:
301:
278:
238:
208:
59:
491:
262:
258:
815:
688:
473:
342:
293:
254:
230:
36:
265:) as an established duo, would it? Not to mention how many new duos we could make out of albums like
93:
444:
156:
176:
529:
226:
334:
603:
545:
428:
406:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
814:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
469:
330:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
780:
742:
625:
594:
571:
499:
373:
319:
311:
274:
204:
56:
657:
490:
or not. I haven't met anyone in Norway who believe that they are. And then we're back with
762:
720:
455:
85:
65:
796:
218:
555:
537:
533:
599:
581:
541:
424:
402:
253:
with other well known artists, but it would not be right of wikipedia to speak of
123:
738:
675:
There is a subtle, but perhaps important, difference. We are not discussing the
621:
567:
495:
369:
315:
270:
200:
53:
758:
716:
449:
789:
532:. Is there enough encyclopedic info in those sources to create an article?
562:, which it is not. Why don't we take a look at some primary sources, like
672:
be, (unless it has been tested at AfD already). Perhaps there should be.
199:
Two solo artists making one record together does not establish a duo
359:; but the raison d'etre of the article is that the two artists are
808:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
615:
585:
222:
563:
566:, section "Musical family". Where is the alleged duo? --
419:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
119:
115:
111:
175:
189:
333:#2), and (b) no requirement for ongoing coverage (
598:will have all the info about this collaboration.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
822:). No further edits should be made to this page.
668:article, that does not necessarily mean there
580:So this collaboration is something like what
8:
530:certified Gold in Sweden ((P.6) IFPI Sweden)
417:Note: This debate has been included in the
395:Note: This debate has been included in the
397:list of Norway-related deletion discussions
416:
394:
73:
76:Articles for deletion/Sissel & Odd
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
560:Sissel & Odd are a norwegian duo
355:Again, there is no doubt that there
472:#2 says that, in this case, it is.
72:
24:
677:Sissel Kyrkjebø and Odd Nordstoga
588:than a duo ? If yes, I am voting
339:According to inclusion guidelines
582:Robert Plant & Alison Krauss
540:) also only recorded one album.
225:, or any of the bands listed at
679:article, we are discussing the
737:has already been discussed. --
666:Robert Plant and Alison Krauss
1:
801:15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
767:12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
747:08:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
725:22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
697:22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
630:16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
620:" . Yes, that sums it up. Bw
608:23:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
576:07:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
550:22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
504:22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
482:19:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
465:08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
433:00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
411:00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
378:11:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
351:09:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
324:21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
302:19:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
279:23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
239:21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
209:19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
60:20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
564:The Official Sissel Webpage
839:
811:Please do not modify it.
612:To the point, exactly: "
517:: Scandinavian coverage
357:has been a collaboration
32:Please do not modify it.
341:the article qualifies.
245:beginning of a new band
71:AfDs for this article:
660:. And even if there
492:Johnny & Waylon
263:Johnny & Willie
259:Johnny & Waylon
251:several duet albums
255:Johnny & Tammy
227:Supergroup (music)
48:The result was
799:
584:did? More like a
463:
435:
422:
413:
400:
830:
813:
795:
681:Sissel & Odd
488:form an ensemble
453:
423:
401:
361:defined as a duo
312:Spellemannprisen
194:
193:
179:
127:
109:
86:Sissel & Odd
66:Sissel & Odd
34:
838:
837:
833:
832:
831:
829:
828:
827:
826:
820:deletion review
809:
314:for 2009. Bw --
136:
100:
84:
81:
69:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
836:
834:
825:
824:
804:
803:
772:
771:
770:
769:
752:
751:
750:
749:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
685:
684:
673:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
556:H & Claire
534:H & Claire
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
437:
436:
414:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
366:
364:
308:
248:
219:Gnarls Barkley
197:
196:
133:
80:
79:
78:
70:
68:
63:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
835:
823:
821:
817:
812:
806:
805:
802:
798:
793:
792:
787:
783:
782:
781:Strålande jul
777:
774:
773:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
753:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
713:
710:
709:
698:
694:
690:
689:RichardOSmith
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
619:
617:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:Strålande jul
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:Stralande jul
523:
520:
516:
513:
512:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
474:RichardOSmith
471:
468:
467:
466:
461:
457:
452:
451:
446:
442:
439:
438:
434:
430:
426:
420:
415:
412:
408:
404:
398:
393:
392:
379:
375:
371:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
343:RichardOSmith
340:
336:
332:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
294:RichardOSmith
291:
287:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
246:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
231:RichardOSmith
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
810:
807:
790:
785:
779:
775:
734:
730:
711:
680:
676:
669:
665:
661:
614:More like a
613:
593:
592:. The album
589:
559:
525:
514:
487:
448:
440:
360:
356:
338:
289:
285:
244:
214:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
784:and keep a
522:significant
163:free images
788:to it. --
618:than a duo
445:WP:TOOSOON
816:talk page
425:• Gene93k
403:• Gene93k
37:talk page
818:or in a
786:redirect
670:couldn't
460:contribs
335:WP:NTEMP
267:this one
130:View log
52:. v/r -
39:or in a
791:P 1 9 9
600:Mattg82
542:Mattg82
515:Comment
494:. Bw --
470:WP:BAND
331:WP:BAND
269:. Bw --
169:WP refs
157:scholar
103:protect
98:history
776:Delete
739:Orland
733:and a
658:WP:WAX
622:Orland
590:Delete
568:Orland
536:(from
496:Orland
441:Delete
370:Orland
316:Orland
271:Orland
201:Orland
141:Google
107:delete
759:Sionk
717:Sionk
662:is'nt
538:Steps
519:seems
450:Legis
221:, or
184:JSTOR
145:books
124:views
116:watch
112:links
16:<
797:TALK
763:talk
743:talk
731:duet
721:talk
712:Keep
693:talk
626:talk
616:duet
604:talk
586:duet
572:talk
546:talk
528:was
524:and
500:talk
478:talk
456:talk
429:talk
407:talk
374:talk
347:talk
320:talk
298:talk
290:this
275:talk
257:(or
235:talk
223:ABBA
215:Keep
205:talk
177:FENS
151:news
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
735:duo
635:me:
443:.
337:).
286:you
261:or
191:TWL
128:– (
794:•
765:)
745:)
723:)
695:)
664:a
628:)
606:)
574:)
548:)
502:)
480:)
458:-
431:)
421:.
409:)
399:.
376:)
368:--
349:)
322:)
300:)
277:)
237:)
229:.
207:)
171:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
761:(
741:(
719:(
691:(
624:(
602:(
570:(
544:(
498:(
476:(
462:)
454:(
427:(
405:(
372:(
345:(
329:(
318:(
296:(
273:(
233:(
203:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
126:)
88:(
57:P
54:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.