292:
festival or fair in a mid-major city. While it's a great event, I really don't think it's logical to assign it the status of an important milestone on the annual musical calendar that, once a band has played it, they have made it. Also, I'll again note, their chart-hitting songs were brief, low positions on genre charts. I'm under the impression a genre chart doesn't count for the WP:BAND "national chart" criteria.
768:…the band stakes out some solid country-rock turf with the title tune and the cautionary tale of racism, 'Cherokee Highway.' However, not all the songwriting is as substantive. Their second album… lapses into bland balladeering, with an occasional stab at Springsteen-style roots-rock. Trouble is they sound more like a Chevy ad than they do the Boss.
291:
The MLK Birthday
Celebration in Atlanta is a huge event at which dozens of, mostly local, bands perform during a 6-hour free concert in a park. This is not an event at which multi-platinum bands descend upon. It's a community festival composed almost exclusively of local gig bands, like any community
204:
What it really gets down to is I want this page deleted so I can create an article on the historic ship SS Western Flyer without having to DAB it. That said, this article legitimately should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability for WP:BAND. The closest it comes to is "Has had a single or album on
761:
does not translate to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." I sure see a lot more blue links
694:
criteria. There's a lot of chaffe being fired into the air and I don't have time to comment on all of it (e.g. the note in the
Lakeland Ledger that the band was playing a bar gig in Wichita one evening in 1987 as "massive coverage"), which is why some of my replies may be absent a point-by-point
794:
The first sentence of your treatise I already addressed (it was a genre chart). You typed a lot after that. To save time, I'm going to assume the rest of your questions are also repetition of what's already been addressed and stop there but, if not, let me know and I'll give it a skim. Thanks.
578:
486:
582:
574:
570:
566:
562:
375:
If you had a country band that wrote a song about, say, how traditionalist
Christianity among southerners has contributed to homophobic hate crimes and criticize the culture attitudes in the south in your country song as you sing in support of equality, and the likes of
270:
590:
384:
reporting especially how the controversy has led civil rights minded groups to promote your band in a big music festival... yeah, if that happened now, I would consider it strong evidence towards your group having a Wiki page.
306:
It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event (this reminds me of the
173:
862:
pass muster, because it's "just a genre chart". Where has "just a genre chart" been a valid argument in the past? I've never seen anyone split hairs over which charts do and do not qualify for that criterion of
731:
Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories
677:
references above? Reviews of three singles certainly convey a non-trivial degree of notability. And again, you have yet to comment on the
Deseret News article or any of the other articles already cited.
727:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising
489:. Neither of the two band members with articles have convincing independent notability. I think we need more evidence of coverage here, or at least something that gives us confidence that it exists. --
344:"It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event ..."
503:
I still think this is borderline based on what has been identified so far, but the likelihood is that further coverage exists, and I don't really see a benefit to the project from deleting this, so
462:
266:). The last of which even hit the 'Top 40'. As far as their other songs, it looks like their "Cherokee Highway" song got enough of a positive reception (even if it didn't chart in the U.S.) that
485:. Very minor hits on a Billboard genre chart are not really convincing as a claim to notability, although they at least make the band borderline. There's a bit more minor coverage
364:
hits, at least two more than your average country band) gets an invitation to a big musical festival based on a socio-political controversy such that the news is so important that
233:
126:
762:
than red on Step One's list of artists, meaning that they meet the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" criterion. For the record, this is what the
527:
167:
775:
771:
417:
205:
any country's national music chart,", however its one appearance (#36 in 1996) was on a genre chart which I don't believe is covered by the WP:BAND catchall criteria.
625:
629:
633:
273:-- the group performed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday celebration in Atlanta as a result. All of this makes me think that they're notable enough.
258:- Allmusic states that they have three separate singles that were popular enough to hit the charts: "She Should've Been Mine" and "Western Flyer" (
558:. The sources from Lakeland Ledger, The Times-Leader, and Deseret News already in the article are clearly non-trivial, and additional coverage in
133:
329:' groups that have Wiki pages), one of which was a top 40 single that still gets airplay, and I fail to see how this group isn't notable.
372:
is not some cheap zine, for crying out loud, they're one of the most notable music related publications in the entire freaking country.
17:
99:
94:
770:" That sounds like a review to me, and reviews are most certainly fine for "non-trivial coverage". Further significant coverage:
103:
673:
The Google Books excerpt seems to be longer than one line from what I can pick up in Google Books. Also, did you miss all the
86:
188:
346:- so if my not-notable band writes a song that gets us invited to a not-notable music festival, we're now notable. Got it.
155:
925:
40:
390:
334:
278:
809:
Okay, but I've shown you that there is precedent for this being a genre chart major enough to meet the criterion of
782:
magazine often reviewed obscure acts like this, so I'll check the late 1996 issues if I can get my hands on them.
64:
149:
321:
is rather far from a mere local or community oriented newspaper. And it's not like they had no hits. They had
830:
225:
888:
874:
842:
824:
804:
789:
708:
685:
661:
643:
600:
539:
516:
498:
474:
453:
429:
413:
394:
386:
355:
338:
330:
301:
282:
274:
249:
214:
145:
68:
921:
36:
696:
613:
229:
713:
You don't think "Charted single in the top 40 of a major chart" or "two albums on a notable label" =
313:
241:
195:
60:
757:
has a precedent for being a sufficiently widespread national music chart. Tell me how two albums on
263:
884:
838:
800:
704:
695:
rebuttal. Most of this doesn't pass the smell test on its own, it doesn't require my dissection or
657:
449:
425:
351:
297:
210:
181:
259:
470:
90:
855:
754:
742:
617:
555:
535:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
920:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
864:
810:
722:
714:
691:
621:
551:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
758:
512:
494:
161:
237:
880:
849:
834:
796:
746:
700:
668:
653:
607:
445:
421:
347:
326:
293:
206:
466:
82:
74:
531:
368:
reports on it, then that's worth noting. That's not a stretch at all. Once again,
120:
508:
490:
440:
749:
Country Tracks are somehow not good enough for "Has had a single or album on
308:
652:
A one-line CD listing in a CD catalog constitutes "significant mention?"
380:
thought that the ensuing discussions was notable enough to mention, with
735:
Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases
813:. Can you show me any counterexamples where "just a genre chart" was
593:. I think this is clearly more than sufficient coverage to pass.
914:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
554:
with and two albums on a notable label, plus a Top 40 hit on
463:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
234:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28
116:
112:
108:
721:, one of the most definitive music magazines ever, is
180:
626:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cole
Swindell
438:Their gig at a bar in Wichita was mentioned in the
194:
630:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mark McGuinn
634:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lenny Gault
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
928:). No further edits should be made to this page.
271:commented on it due to the song's subject matter
585:, including reviews of three of their singles.
528:list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions
854:And you're not giving me any good reason why
8:
753:", especially when I pointed out above that
526:Note: This debate has been included in the
461:Note: This debate has been included in the
620:is considered a major enough chart to pass
416:. Another example of newspaper coverage is
525:
460:
444:?! Man, what was I thinking AfD'ing this.
589:also has significant mention of the band
725:? Tell me how reviews of singles are "
690:While those are nice, they don't meet
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
741:by criterion #1. Tell me how #32 on
262:) and "What Will You Do With M-E" (
751:any country's national music chart
717:? You don't think that reviews in
24:
311:" single) got enough notice for
1:
889:00:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
875:22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
843:20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
825:17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
805:10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
790:07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
745:and another single at #38 on
709:07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
686:06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
662:06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
644:04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
601:04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
540:05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
517:17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
395:06:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
232:). I have transcluded it to
69:01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
499:07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
475:23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
454:15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
430:14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
360:If a well-known band (with
356:19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
339:02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
302:15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
283:06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
250:05:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
224:This AfD was not correctly
215:05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
945:
831:no such thing as precedent
917:Please do not modify it.
325:(two more than the many'
32:Please do not modify it.
264:from their second album
260:from their first album
317:to talk about them.
737:", the only things
587:MusicHound Country
222:Automated comment:
856:Hot Country Songs
755:Hot Country Songs
743:Hot Country Songs
618:Hot Country Songs
556:Hot Country Songs
542:
477:
414:CoffeeWithMarkets
387:CoffeeWithMarkets
331:CoffeeWithMarkets
275:CoffeeWithMarkets
252:
248:
59:
56:non-admin closure
936:
919:
872:
870:Ten Pound Hammer
853:
822:
820:Ten Pound Hammer
787:
785:Ten Pound Hammer
759:Step One Records
683:
681:Ten Pound Hammer
672:
641:
639:Ten Pound Hammer
611:
598:
596:Ten Pound Hammer
244:
243:Talk to my owner
239:
220:
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
944:
943:
939:
938:
937:
935:
934:
933:
932:
926:deletion review
915:
868:
847:
818:
783:
679:
666:
637:
605:
594:
441:Lakeland Ledger
247:
242:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
61:DavidLeighEllis
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
942:
940:
931:
930:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
647:
646:
603:
544:
543:
522:
521:
520:
519:
479:
478:
458:
457:
456:
433:
432:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
373:
327:one hit wonder
286:
285:
253:
240:
202:
201:
138:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
941:
929:
927:
923:
918:
912:
911:
890:
886:
882:
879:That's nice.
878:
877:
876:
871:
866:
861:
858:somehow does
857:
851:
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
821:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
793:
792:
791:
786:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
693:
689:
688:
687:
682:
676:
670:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
648:
645:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
609:
604:
602:
597:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
396:
392:
388:
383:
379:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
310:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:
251:
245:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:Western Flyer
80:
79:
76:
75:Western Flyer
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
916:
913:
869:
859:
819:
814:
784:
779:
767:
766:book says: "
763:
750:
738:
734:
730:
726:
718:
680:
674:
638:
595:
586:
559:
547:
504:
482:
439:
409:
381:
377:
369:
365:
361:
343:
322:
318:
312:
267:
255:
228:to the log (
221:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
867:like this.
780:New Country
697:WP:LASTWORD
614:WP:OUTCOMES
226:transcluded
168:free images
764:MusicHound
507:for me. --
922:talk page
881:LavaBaron
850:LavaBaron
835:LavaBaron
797:LavaBaron
719:Billboard
701:LavaBaron
675:Billboard
669:LavaBaron
654:LavaBaron
608:LavaBaron
560:Billboard
550:, passes
532:• Gene93k
505:weak keep
446:LavaBaron
422:Arxiloxos
382:Billboard
378:Billboard
370:Billboard
366:Billboard
348:LavaBaron
319:Billboard
314:Billboard
309:Same Love
294:LavaBaron
268:Billboard
207:LavaBaron
37:talk page
924:or in a
829:There's
817:enough?
739:excluded
467:Toffanin
127:View log
39:or in a
865:WP:BAND
811:WP:BAND
733:", or "
723:WP:BAND
715:WP:BAND
692:WP:BAND
636:et al.
622:WP:BAND
552:WP:BAND
483:Comment
246::Online
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
624:; see
581:, and
509:Michig
491:Michig
230:step 3
146:Google
104:delete
362:three
323:three
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
885:talk
839:talk
801:talk
776:here
772:here
729:", "
705:talk
658:talk
612:Per
591:here
583:here
579:here
575:here
571:here
567:here
563:here
548:Keep
536:talk
513:talk
495:talk
487:here
471:talk
450:talk
426:talk
420:. --
418:here
412:per
410:Keep
391:talk
352:talk
335:talk
298:talk
279:talk
256:Keep
236:. —
211:talk
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
50:keep
873:•
860:not
823:•
815:not
788:•
747:RPM
684:•
642:•
599:•
196:TWL
125:– (
52:.
887:)
841:)
833:.
803:)
778:.
774:,
707:)
699:.
660:)
632:,
628:,
616:,
577:,
573:,
569:,
565:,
538:)
530:.
515:)
497:)
473:)
465:.
452:)
428:)
393:)
354:)
337:)
300:)
281:)
213:)
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
883:(
852::
848:@
837:(
799:(
703:(
671::
667:@
656:(
610::
606:@
534:(
511:(
493:(
469:(
448:(
424:(
389:(
350:(
333:(
307:"
296:(
277:(
209:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.