Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASG (band)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This has been open long enough and there has been no activity in almost a week. While a "no consensus" may be justified by a simple vote count, I'm going with keep because nobody has provided a strong counter-argument to any of the keep !votes, which cite both improved sourcing and the record deal with a reputable label. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ASG (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable band. No charted songs, not signed by a major label or well-recognized indie. Only one independent reference, a very brief mention in a track list for a video game soundtrack, and that single ref was only added after I PRODded the page (the editor adding the ref used that as an excuse to remove the PROD). Every other ref is from their label, the band's own web site, or the band's MySpace page. Sorry, folks, that's not enough. Can't independently verify anything else about this band. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I can't find significant coverage of the band. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC.  Jujutacular  T · C 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a quite notable band. At least two of their songs have been used on Huevos 9, a very well known and published ATV DVD series. They are far from the "garage band" you mention on your Wikipedia site. Realkyhick, the author of the above "reason" is a non-notable newspaper columist and announcer of low rate sporting events. Hardly someone qualified to critique which bands or musical projects are notable and which are not. ASG's material has also been used as background in Skate 2, as well as many other snowboarding and surfing DVDs. In addition, their music can easily be downloaded from just about any electronic jukebox in the country, as well as the fact that all of their albums are listed for purchase on itunes. These are hardly qualities justifying the label of "garage band". Anyone with the ability to use Google.com or any other search engine with lack luster abilities can easily find and read about this band. Sorry folks, but their biography on Wikipedia is well deserved. If you read the self created Wikipedia biography of the author of the nonsense above, you'll see that they are intent on deleting material concerning bands as a source of entertainment. This is a very poor attempt to bash a group of individuals ilustrating a great deal more talent than the above author. In conclusion, I am not friends with, or in any way personally know any member of ASG. I am nothing more than someone who, although the author above says is impossible, has read about this band on the web, and has taken a liking to their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.59.211 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. First we have an anonymous IP editor who engages in personal attacks (prohibited at Wikipedia, by the way). Wow, how brave of you! He or she makes unsubstantiated claims about how anyone can find out about the band through Google, but fails to provide any usable results from such a search. That's a big help. I stand by my assertions that this band does not meet WP:BAND. If you can prove otherwise, do so. Put up or shut up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. I'm simply bringing up the simple question of whether or not a small time sports castor has any credibility or authority when it comes to rating published music... Seeing as your whole point has to do with "notablility" or "credibility", I think everyone reading would like to know what "credibility" you have to be judging someone's musical material.  Are you a writer for Spin Magazine?  Do you submit material for Rolling Stone?  Does your sports column in a local newpaper have anything to do with music?  Do you manage or promote bands?  If you are none of the above, then I don't see how you have enough "credibility" to be deleting bands from Wikipedia.  The bottom line is, ASG is a very talented band who's material has been used in many well known, copywrited media productions.  In your laughable retort, you've failed to acknowledge all the facts I mentioned prior.  Non-notable bands don't have labels... Non-notable bands don't sell material to be used on mass produced media.  Non-notable bands don't produce four albums that can be bought all around the country.  What more "verification" do you need?  Go to youtube.com or itunes.com, that's all the verification you need.  They have tons of material on both, along with a huge fan base.  Your labeling ASG as "non-notable" or "garage band" is absolutely rediculous.  As far as me being an "anonymous IP editor"... well, I guess I am.  I don't have a Wikipedia sign on, and fortunately for me, I only come to Wikipedia for information, I don't hang out here.  I do have other things to do with my time, thank you very much.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have no clue as to what constitutes a notable band for Wikipedia purposes. Read those words again: for Wikipedia purposes. Those standards are given on this page. I could care less how their music sounds. It doesn't matter. There are many bands on here whose music I would probably find horrible, but if they meet our notability standards, their article stays. Conversely, I can think of two or three artists in my local area that I like, but they also do not meet our standards. Notability has nothing to do with quality. ASG does not meet the criteria we have established. If you look at the criteria, and see one that ASG has met, then please come back here to cite how the band meets that criterion. Non-notable bands do have labels, but those labels are not notable in their own right. Pretty much every non-notable band out there sells "material to be used on mass produced media." Any non-notable band can produce four albums on their own these days. As for albums "that can be bought all around the country," show us proof. And the Internet doesn't count, as pretty much any artist can sign up to have iTunes, Amazon and numerous other online music outlets. And YouTube? Literally anyone can post stuff on there, but that doesn't make them notable. (I have dozens on there, and I'm not notable by Wikipedia standards.) That's not anything close to verification of notability. You must have references from independent, reliable sources (and blogs are not considered to be reliable sources) to prove that the claims made are notable. If you're not interested in doing that, then leave us alone so we can deal with such articles by our long-established policies, and stop making cowardly derogatory remarks about those you disagree with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: For those of you who keep erasing the content of this AfD, it won't make it go away. It just makes you look like a dork. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- as per Realkyhick, not notable band. No contract, no charted songs. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Just now I've added multiple citations to reliable sources, representing significant coverage, in my view; WP:BAND criterion #1. The band is a "veteran of the Vans Warped Tour" according to one newspaper article I found. And the band meets WP:BAND criterion #5, with multiple albums released on Volcom Entertainment. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I differ with your view of "significant coverage," though it is hard to make a hard-and-fast determination of that because most of the refs are not linkable. (Can these be found online? I tried, and failed.) A good portion of this seems to come from their hometown newspaper, which means it has about as much significance as if I wrote in my newspaper about a band from Gardendale, Alabama - in other words, not much. Better than nothing, I suppose. I've also wondered whether Volcom can be considered a significant indie label. Their own article contains no references whatsoever, except for their own web site. I've seriously considered putting it up for AfD, but I'll tag it first for refimprove. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - while I am tempted to consider the coverage User:Paul Erik refers to as "significant" (see search), it seems like Volcom Entertainment could be a "significant indie label" . Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: changed from 'weak keep' to 'keep' per User:Paul Erik and User:J04n below. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep (Duplicate vote) Band has many references at this point. Seems to specifically meet two requirements per Paul Erik's entry.  Volcom is most definately a successful Indie Label, so they must have a contract.  I don't think "significant" coverage is necessary if the current coverage sufficiently includes the band as notable.  Also, I'd have to agree with the one "unsigned" comment above.  Is this Wikipedia trying to delete this, or just a user taking it upon him/herself?  I feel that's a decent question to ask.  The band seems solid as far as the references go, what's the problem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, you only get to vote once. Since Whois shows both you and 74.76.59.211 are located in Watervliet, NY, you may have voted twice already.  --CliffC (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure 74.76.59.211's comment above should be considered a !vote. It seemed a bit more like a personal attack, while this comment above is indicated a !vote by the bold 'keep', and contains less ad hominem.  Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon IP editor evidently does not have a concept of how Wikipedia's deletion process works. "Wikipedia," as an organization, doesn't delete anything. All deletion discussions are instigated by individual editors such as myself, then discussed by other individual editors such as yourself, and finally a determination is made by an administrator - who is simply another editor with slightly greater responsibilities. As for the references and coverage, it's definitely getting better, though I'm still not convinced all the way - yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This group is of little notability that is for sure, also I have seen, there are three not notable albums that have articles that also need deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A few more comments from me... First, to clarify, Volcom Entertainment was a subsidiary of MCA Records, so we're in the realm of major-label. Second, I've added links to some of the articles that are accessible on the Internet (although one is behind a pay wall). Third, I've added some more sources. While it's tempting to dismiss the coverage as "just a local paper writing about its local band", there is coverage beyond that, including in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and in Allmusic. Fourth, there is even more media coverage than this. There is this in Cleveland Scene, a brief album review in Metro Times, a review in Spike Magazine, a review in Hippo Press, a review in Revolver (January 2008), and an interview in Surfing Magazine (May 2005). Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that Volcom is no longer an MCA subsidiary, by your remarks. If it still were, notability would not be in question. As it is, it is likely still notable at least for historical purposes. The additional references are definitely a help. You're starting to bring me around, but I'm still not totally convinced yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The album review in Allmusic put the article over the top for me, the Warped Tour is a big plus. Plenty of verifiable info for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.