242:
274:
Let's see here: according to that chart archive, the album debuted at #55 on the charts in its first week, declined to #78 in its second, and then bellyflopped off the charts never to be heard from again after just two weeks. And the singles all did the same: two made a quick debut at an unimpressive
968:
Absolutely not true. The guideline states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria..." No mention whatsoever of having to meet criterion
334:
because not substantive. #3 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about the head of their record label, not assisting GNG because not about them. #4 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a songwriter, not assisting GNG because not about them. #5 = 78-word blurb,
417:
They had two singles and an album that made the top 75. We're looking for encyclopedic relevance, backed up by evidence - the GNG isn't everything. Personally I feel that an artist that made the top 75 in the UK is highly likely to be worthy of inclusion. If you don't think these are enough for
937:
from having to pass #1. For instance, a band does not pass the "touring" criterion just because you can show concert listings directories, or the primary source websites of the tour venues, as proof that they toured — they pass the touring criterion when
398:
from the first time I've seen you try to argue that a musical artist or band had to be kept because it was possible to find blurbs and one-line acknowledgements of their existence in articles about other things or other people — but we're looking for
216:
rather than real media coverage. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to a
Knowledge article just because they existed and had a Myspace page; RS coverage supporting an NMUSIC pass must be present for an article to become earned.
418:
notability, that's your opinion, but given that you found absolutely nothing, or more likely (as your deletion rationale suggests) didn't even look, it's a bit rich to be criticising me for simply listing what I found from a web search. --
556:
I'm not misreading anything whatsoever. NMUSIC explicitly states that its notability criteria cannot be passed merely by asserting passage (music being one of those areas where PR flunkies have a marked tendency to
166:
969:
1. And a chart company's own website is perfectly good for verifying chart placings - significant coverage is not required for verification, the criterion is satisfied if the chart position can be verified. --
740:
946:
about the tour. And a band does not pass the charting criterion just because a chart position can technically be referenced to that chart itself — they pass the charting criterion when
378:
Not for the first time, I remind you that we're not after "reliable sources have provided one-line acknowledgements that the band existed"; we're after "reliable sources have published
565:
the actual reality, such as by claiming "hit" status for any song that ever got played on the radio at all even if it got played once and charted nowhere), but are passed only when a
363:
source that's been shown, but it serves only to verify that they exist rather than actually offering any noteworthy information that would actually pass NMUSIC — so while it counts
235:. The article is poor, but please start looking at something other than the article itself before bringing things to AfD. This group had three minor hit singles and a top 60 album (
542:(which states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline"). --
119:
160:
662:
It says nothing of the sort. It says that satisfying the criteria must be reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing of facts does not require significant coverage. --
897:
No, he did not. "Unimpressive chart position, sourced only to that chart's self-published database of its own chart positions" is still an NMUSIC
126:
238:), and at least some of the coverage that they received is still online, as well as coverage of the duo they became when one of them left:
307:
passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an inclusion freebie in and of itself — regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article can
92:
87:
96:
251:
248:
245:
620:
is not what gets them into
Knowledge; the ability to reference the article to "a lot of significant coverage" is, and NMUSIC is
775:
239:
79:
17:
181:
616:
requires GNG to be satisfied; I said that NMUSIC requires GNG to be satisfied. The ability to nominally verify that a band
508:. And no, my deletion rationale does not "suggest that I didn't even look"; it suggests, because this is the truth, that I
148:
440:
from having to source the article over GNG, but merely serve to clarify what kinds of things can get an article kept
801:
787:
716:
339:
because not substantive. #6 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a related band that formed
57:
1045:
40:
849:
been passed for an article about a band to be considered notable under NMUSIC — no matter what criterion a band
283:
in the second week, and then gone gone gone — and the third didn't even manage that, starting in the 80s in its
142:
209:
598:
to be satisfied. Verifiability and finding a lot of significant coverage are two entirely different things. --
254:
1022:
888:
828:
1026:
1010:
978:
963:
892:
878:
832:
805:
778:
749:
731:
689:
671:
657:
607:
586:
551:
533:
427:
412:
265:
226:
138:
61:
352:
1041:
797:
745:
727:
53:
36:
188:
539:
772:
174:
83:
1018:
884:
824:
1002:
959:
874:
685:
653:
582:
529:
408:
222:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1040:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
355:) and because it's a Q&A-style interview which represents Nugent and Belle talking about
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
974:
761:
667:
603:
547:
423:
330:
So let's actually look at what you've shown for sourcing: #2 = 80-word blurb, not assisting
300:
261:
205:
154:
816:
213:
236:
769:
75:
67:
869:
are what we measure, not how impressive the unsourced or poorly sourced claims sound.
910:
865:
the article that determines whether the notability claim passes or fails NMUSIC. The
765:
595:
566:
336:
331:
955:
870:
854:
681:
649:
578:
525:
456:
from actually having to get the topic over GNG — it's the depth and quality of the
404:
218:
201:
113:
921:
has to satisfy without exception; criteria 2-12 are only considered to be passed
997:
970:
820:
663:
613:
599:
591:
570:
543:
419:
257:
464:
the claim that determine whether the claim is passed or failed, not the mere
208:; as written, this amounts to "band who existed", and is sourced entirely to
883:
And Michig provided a quality source that supports the notability claim.
516:
weak sources you proffered above, but utterly failed to find anything
480:
than just glancing namechecks of its existence — it's high enough
1034:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
929:
by the volume and quality of sourcing needed to satisfy #1, but
760:
After reading through the above debate, it is clear to me that
504:
as NMUSIC explicitly requires that GNG is also being passed in
790:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
719:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
472:
end of the Top 75, for instance, is not compelling enough to
319:
the claim that determines whether it passes or fails NMUSIC,
524:
what's required (which your sources above also fail to do.)
299:
chart performance we're talking about here. And, as always,
764:
doesn't save this article, and it certainly doesn't pass
448:
by GNG-qualifying sources. NMUSIC explicitly states that
741:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
648:
that very thing right in its own introduction, in fact.
311:
that its topic meets, it's the depth and quality of the
109:
105:
101:
347:
article broke up, not assisting GNG because not about
173:
1000:- The band had notable singles and a notable album.
468:
of an NMUSIC claim in and of itself. Peaking in the
796:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
725:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
569:-satisfying volume of coverage exists to properly
452:passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an
403:coverage, not cursory verification of existence.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1048:). No further edits should be made to this page.
367:GNG more than any other source does, it doesn't
187:
8:
739:Note: This debate has been included in the
500:coverage to pass GNG, then NMUSIC is still
738:
624:if that significant coverage isn't there.
644:support the article — NMUSIC explicitly
853:to pass, it's the depth and quality of
476:a band from having to be sourceable to
913:. NMUSIC #1 is the one criterion that
7:
845:verify that an NMUSIC criterion has
512:look, and in fact found some of the
841:It takes more than the aboility to
371:GNG all by itself as the article's
275:chart position in the 45-70 range,
905:of enough substantive coverage in
436:everything. SNGs do not create an
24:
632:to be true about them, NMUSIC is
819:which is sufficiant to satisfy
343:the band that's the subject of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
815:. Verified charting satisfies
359:. #7 = the closest thing to a
327:of the claim in and of itself.
295:a second week. This is hardly
1:
1017:Now expanded with more refs.
227:22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
1027:03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
1011:02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
979:21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
964:18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
893:01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
879:00:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
833:11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
806:09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
640:RS coverage can be shown to
62:14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
954:about them having charted.
779:05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
750:00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
732:00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
690:15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
680:say something of the sort.
672:07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
658:23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
608:21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
587:18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
552:20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
534:18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
428:18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
413:15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
266:08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
1065:
200:. Band with no strong or
1037:Please do not modify it.
561:the publicity hype well
460:that can be provided to
315:that can be provided to
32:Please do not modify it.
901:if the band aren't the
676:Yes, it most certainly
484:the article is sourced
303:explicitly states that
857:that can or cannot be
628:of what the article
540:Knowledge:Notability
351:band (notability is
538:You are misreading
520:enough to actually
612:I didn't say that
488:, but if the band
375:GNG-worthy source.
917:band or musician
855:reliable sourcing
808:
752:
734:
594:does not require
204:claim to passing
1056:
1039:
1007:
1006:
795:
793:
791:
748:
730:
724:
722:
720:
202:properly sourced
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1046:deletion review
1035:
1004:
1003:
809:
786:
784:
744:
735:
726:
715:
713:
210:primary sources
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1062:
1060:
1051:
1050:
1030:
1029:
1014:
1013:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
836:
835:
794:
783:
782:
781:
754:
753:
723:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
577:of the claim.
376:
335:not assisting
328:
287:week and then
269:
268:
195:
194:
131:
76:The Alice Band
70:
68:The Alice Band
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1061:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:duffbeerforme
1016:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1008:
999:
995:
992:
991:
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
885:duffbeerforme
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
825:duffbeerforme
822:
818:
814:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
792:
789:
780:
777:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
751:
747:
746:North America
742:
737:
736:
733:
729:
728:North America
721:
718:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:passed until
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
389:
388:accomplishing
385:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:not inherited
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1036:
1033:
1005:Yoshiman6464
1001:
993:
951:
950:are writing
947:
943:
942:are writing
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
906:
902:
898:
866:
862:
858:
850:
846:
842:
812:
785:
757:
714:
677:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
574:
562:
558:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
400:
395:
392:encyclopedic
391:
387:
383:
379:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
348:
344:
340:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
232:
197:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
847:technically
638:significant
518:substantive
498:substantive
401:substantive
394:". This is
380:substantive
361:substantive
289:immediately
161:free images
933:confer an
626:Regardless
496:of enough
390:something
357:themselves
297:impressive
1042:talk page
935:exemption
927:supported
843:nominally
798:T. Canens
776:(contrib)
770:Eggishorn
762:WP:NMUSIC
466:assertion
454:exemption
446:supported
438:exemption
432:Yes, GNG
386:the band
382:coverage
325:assertion
323:the mere
301:WP:NMUSIC
206:WP:NMUSIC
54:T. Canens
37:talk page
1044:or in a
925:they're
909:to pass
859:provided
817:WP:MUSIC
788:Relisted
717:Relisted
642:properly
486:properly
458:sourcing
444:they're
313:sourcing
214:WP:BLOGS
120:View log
39:or in a
956:Bearcat
952:content
944:content
903:subject
871:Bearcat
867:sources
863:support
682:Bearcat
650:Bearcat
579:Bearcat
559:inflate
526:Bearcat
522:satisfy
494:subject
462:support
450:nominal
405:Bearcat
317:support
305:nominal
293:without
279:to the
219:Bearcat
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
998:Michig
971:Michig
931:cannot
919:always
911:WP:GNG
851:claims
773:(talk)
766:WP:GNG
758:Delete
664:Michig
630:claims
622:failed
618:exists
600:Michig
596:WP:GNG
571:verify
567:WP:GNG
544:Michig
506:tandem
502:failed
474:exempt
420:Michig
365:toward
337:WP:GNG
332:WP:GNG
291:dying
258:Michig
198:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
948:media
940:media
915:every
907:media
575:truth
490:isn't
384:about
369:carry
341:after
309:claim
285:first
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1023:talk
996:per
994:Keep
975:talk
960:talk
899:fail
889:talk
875:talk
829:talk
821:WP:N
813:Keep
802:talk
686:talk
678:does
668:talk
654:talk
646:says
614:WP:V
604:talk
592:WP:V
583:talk
573:the
563:past
548:talk
530:talk
514:same
492:the
478:more
424:talk
409:talk
373:only
349:this
345:this
277:fell
262:talk
256:. --
233:Keep
223:talk
212:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
861:to
634:not
510:did
470:low
396:far
321:not
281:80s
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
1025:)
977:)
962:)
923:if
891:)
877:)
831:)
823:.
804:)
743:.
688:)
670:)
656:)
606:)
585:)
550:)
532:)
482:if
442:if
434:is
426:)
411:)
264:)
253:,
250:,
247:,
244:,
241:,
225:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1021:(
973:(
958:(
887:(
873:(
827:(
800:(
768:.
684:(
666:(
652:(
602:(
581:(
546:(
528:(
422:(
407:(
260:(
221:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.