392:, and that have received extensive national radio airplay, AND that have been mentioned - even if in passing - in major publications such as Blender, GQ, i-D Magazine and Variety, then Knowledge (XXG) should just declare 'If you don't sell X million records, you don't exist'. However, economic 'correctness', i.e. record sales, is not the sole criteria that a band's notability or relevance should be judged by, unless we want Knowledge (XXG) to become the sole domain of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers and other pre-fabricated, corporate-sponsored, market-driven acts with no critical or social value, outside the scope of disposable pre-teen culture. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an unbiased, descriptive informational resource, and should not be hindered by any one individual's subjective definition of 'signficance'. Not only is the bias in the 'Delete' comments above based upon a lack of research and basic human laziness - all the annotated references are verifiable for anyone who wishes to look them up at your local library - but the overwhelming amount of easily searchable reviews for those who refuse to bother doing such research should put an end to any argument as to whether or not this band exists within the context as described within the article. If you wish to delete this article - go right ahead - but in doing so, you must likewise eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles on bands, artists, books and publications that have not met your arbitrary definition of 'notability', thus greatly reducing the depth of information the public is allowed to access via Knowledge (XXG) as a basic reseach tool. Ask yourself this - by deleting this article, would Knowledge (XXG) become more informative, or less? I see no reason this article doesn't contribute positively to the overall mission statement of what Knowledge (XXG) claims to represent. 10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
155:- I don't believe the linked articles support notability. The focus of the Wired article is on SXSW torrents and mentions the band as an example. The Austin Chronicle is Austin's free rag that often does stories on "up and coming" small local bands, the vast majority of which are not notable. The other articles were university papers that don't contribute to notability per
409:
could at the time I commented, and none of them met the guidelines for notability. I'd also invite you to look at a history of the article at the time it was proposed for deletion. Given that, I would say this deletion discussion has done a great job towards drastically improving the quality of this article - specific props to
299:, in which John Waters mentions a song by the Yuppie Pricks once in a list of songs that mean a lot to him, they don't contribute to notability. "Significant coverage" means that the article must address the subject in detail, not just in passing. I'm also wary that so many of the substantive edits are from SPA accounts.
403:
guidelines are broad enough to easily encompass small, independent bands, as long as they have received enough substantive coverage by independent sources to be verifiable. My objections to this article were that it was poorly sourced, the references that were given were all either to non-independent
294:
I didn't mean to denigrate the
Chronicle by calling it a 'free rag', but the fact of the matter is that it reviews and publishes pieces on tons of local bands, the vast, vast majority of which are not notable. The vast majority of off-Broadway plays that receive coverage in The Village Voice are also
290:
is a highly-regarded, well-established alternative weekly that has been published since 1981, with a readership of nearly 250,000, similar in content and style to the
Village Voice. This contradicts the above assertion that it is merely a 'free rag' focusing on 'up and coming' small, local bands.
408:
problems due to its lack of notability. As far as your "basic human laziness" comment, a reader of a
Knowledge (XXG) article shouldn't have to search high and low for verifiable reference for assertions made in the article, especially for a current culture piece. I DID verify the references that I
317:
edits is unusual, but I agree with
Sashaman that coverage in reliable sources needs to be significant in order for the subject to qualify as notable. The article titles and quotes from the reliable sources are really needed to determine notability, because they are not available online.
387:
If the intent of a 'notability' standard is to only allow bands that have, for example, feature stories in
Rolling Stone, certified gold records, airplay on MTV, etc., while excluding independent/underground bands that have released albums on imprints as well known as
413:
for the references improvements. Thus, though I still think the article could use cleanup with regards to the points noted in its headers, I think that the added references now support its notability and verifiablity. Because of this I'm changing my recommendation to
398:
Oh, please. Enough with the "Knowledge (XXG) will only be for the corporate fat cat bands" melodrama, especially from a user who by all accounts of his edit history has a vested interest in this band. The
189:
123:
278:. Additional citations of well-established alternative media and online magazine coverage have been included, as well as references to airplay this artist has received on
131:
262:. This article has been recently updated to include footnotes. Several notable references from mainstream fashion and music publications have been cited, including
296:
130:
An article about a punk-rock band from Austin, Texas. This was prodded but I have declined the prod and brought it here as there seems to be some news coverage
90:
85:
94:
77:
17:
174:
444:
36:
295:
not notable. I'm not able to verify the print GQ, i-D and
Blender articles, but if they're anything like the linked
443:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
427:
378:
355:
327:
308:
254:
226:
204:
178:
146:
59:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
250:
162:
81:
389:
374:
142:
419:
323:
300:
166:
423:
304:
200:
170:
400:
156:
134:
73:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
235:
287:
275:
405:
404:
sources or to articles with the most minor of mentions, and that the article suffered many
314:
410:
370:
138:
238:
214:
351:
319:
55:
242:
222:
196:
111:
339:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
246:
133:. The rationale for the prod was, "article makes no claim of notability (see
346:
283:
50:
218:
271:
437:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
267:
279:
263:
366:
New references added which confirm notability of the band.
190:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
118:
107:
103:
99:
213:
Per
Sashaman. The references don't appear to satisfy
344:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
447:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
188:: This debate has been included in the
241:and as such does not comply with the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
291:16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
428:19:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
379:14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
356:04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
328:04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
309:04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
255:21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
227:20:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
205:16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
179:08:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
147:03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
60:08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
282:satellite radio, as well as
464:
440:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
234:. The article does not
390:Alternative Tentacles
286:. Furthermore, the
243:verifiability policy
44:The result was
358:
207:
193:
165:comment added by
74:The Yuppie Pricks
66:The Yuppie Pricks
455:
442:
343:
341:
288:Austin Chronicle
276:Blender Magazine
239:reliable sources
194:
184:
181:
121:
115:
97:
34:
463:
462:
458:
457:
456:
454:
453:
452:
451:
445:deletion review
438:
337:
297:Variety article
160:
117:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
461:
459:
450:
449:
433:
432:
431:
430:
368:
367:
360:
359:
342:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
313:The number of
311:
257:
229:
208:
182:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
460:
448:
446:
441:
435:
434:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
407:
402:
397:
394:
393:
391:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
365:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
340:
336:
335:
329:
325:
321:
316:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
202:
198:
191:
187:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
439:
436:
415:
395:
384:
369:
363:
345:
338:
259:
231:
210:
185:
152:
129:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
161:—Preceding
411:Strummer25
371:Strummer25
139:Malcolmxl5
320:EagleAg04
284:BBC radio
420:Sashaman
401:WP:MUSIC
396:Response
301:Sashaman
197:RayAYang
175:contribs
167:Sashaman
163:unsigned
157:WP:MUSIC
135:WP:MUSIC
124:View log
272:Variety
91:protect
86:history
406:WP:COI
315:WP:SPA
247:Stifle
232:Delete
211:Delete
153:Delete
119:delete
95:delete
215:WP:NM
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
424:talk
416:Keep
385:Keep
375:talk
364:Keep
352:talk
347:Cirt
324:talk
305:talk
274:and
260:Keep
251:talk
236:cite
223:talk
201:talk
186:Note
171:talk
143:talk
137:)".
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
418:.
268:i-D
219:JNW
195:--
192:.
159:.
426:)
377:)
354:)
326:)
307:)
280:XM
270:,
266:,
264:GQ
253:)
245:.
225:)
217:.
203:)
177:)
173:•
145:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
422:(
373:(
350:(
322:(
303:(
249:(
221:(
199:(
169:(
141:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.