Talk:Ménage à Twang

oppose speedy
I'm not sure why this was even nominated. The only requirement not to be speedy deleted for WP:MUSIC is that it asserts importance - this article does so, and includes a good amount of media coverage. Tduk (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the assertion of "has garnered coverage" is pretty weak. Of the sources listed, two are of the bands own website, and another appears to be a student newspaper.  That leaves what, 3?  That doesn't amount to a "good amount" in my book.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok, but to stop a speedy you don't need any sources, you just need to assert importance, as stated at CSD A7. I wish people would read policy before nominating things that clearly don't fit. Tduk (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say as it stands, it doesn't assert importance. How about stating WHY they have gotten coverage?  To me it does not pass A7 at this point in time.  The article is just a stub, and having only a couple of sources listed doesn't make it pass A7.  Moreover, a closer look at the refs you have provided indicate that the 2nd reference from Reverbination is really just a mention; the 3rd reference is a high school student paper that is not independent of the subject; the 4th reference from a college alumni association talks more about the album, and again only briefly mentions the band, so there is no significant coverage there; the 5th reference (Brooklyn Vegan) doesn't appear to be a reliable source; and the last two refs are from their own website.  So clearly the article has not demonstrated passing A7 at this time. The article CAN still be speedied, the only thing the hangon tag does is delay it if the article is not changed to show HOW or WHY the band is significant.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does A7 state that _any_ references are required? If you think it should be AFD'ed already, after less than a day, that's your choice, but it seems to pretty clearly pass A7, which is there only to filter out clear SPAM and such. Tduk (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're clearly missing my point. The article's assertion of having gained coverage is not demonstrated.  I don't think I have seen any articles that use that reasoning.  Like I said above, when you answer the question of "WHY has the band received coverage (events they have played, awards won, etc.), instead of what is there now, then it might pass A7.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 *    An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.  You seem to be arguing that it is not notable, and has unreliable sources. A7 clearly states that those are not needed to pass A7. I have created this article specifically so people can add to it - that is how wikipedia works. Tduk (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it stands that chance as currently worded. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and still don't understand why you feel that way... Rather than trying to explain it, then, why don't you demonstrate how to fix it so I understand what you're talking about? Tduk (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I've BEEN trying to do that if you bother to really read in depth what I wrote above. WHY has the band gained coverage?  If you can answer that, then you can put that in the opening statement rather than "has gained coverage".  On a side note, I did a Google search for them and can only come up with a handful of what would be considered reliable sources to make this band notable enough for Wikipedia.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to bring up the nearly-sarcastic attitude. I actually asked you if you could improve the article and _demonstrate_ what you mean, rather than trying to explain it, since I think we just disagree on interpretation of wikipedia policy here. Also, a handful of sources, as far as I know, is enough to justify an article - never mind that Google does not do a good job of searching print sources. Tduk (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the speedy, since it might reasonably be shown to be notable. I have no opinion on any further deletion action, but I think there's enough evidence of notability to preclude a speedy deletion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)