Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Jackson


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable - lists only trivial coverage or unreliable sources, ie online articles for which no print equivalent exists. (see WP:BAND) DaveBury135 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article does indeed include reliable sources, namely online articles from the web sites of The Guardian and the BBC which are specifically about this band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs a major rewrite to remove the PR hype, but they may just scrape by on the coverage. I disagree that all the sources are unreliable or that the coverage is trivial. Some of the articles are online, but they are from notable UK national newspapers and also appear in their print versions, e.g. The Guardian ("New Band of the Day"), The Sunday Times ("The hottest downloads: Black Jackson, Ciara ft Justin Timberlake"). Likewise the BBC is a notable and reliable source ("Review:Black Jackson at the Witchwood"). I've also found another article that appeared in the print version of a well-known UK regional paper, The Lancashire Evening Telegraph ("Future is Bright for Black Jackson")  Voceditenore (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While undoubtedly reliable, the BBC/Guardian are huge websites, it's not particularly notable to have an article on one of those sites. Surely the comparator is WP:BAND point 12, a 1/2 hour or longer broadcast. The coverage this band has recieved is not the equivalent of this. The band may well one day be notable - in fact, calling them 'the hottest downloads' might be evidence of this - but I don't think they are yet. Spike iron (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add to that - if we were to say that (say) a small review on the regional outskirts of the BBC website counts as enough to prove notability, it'd be out of keeping with almost all of the other WP:BAND criteria - that, say, they must have "a record certified gold or higher", or have "been placed on rotation nationally", or "has won/been nominated for a major music award". I know it says only one of the criteria are needed, but we should really view the first in the light of the rest. Nearly any local band could get a page if you just need a review on a (admittedly reliable) website. It looks like Wikipedia sets the bar higher than that. DaveBury135 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Do I perhaps detect a conflict here between the nominator DaveBury135 (whose only edits have been in connection with this article) and a band from Radcliffe, a place not far removed from the town of Bury? Peridon (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I always check the nominator's contributions in these discussions, and I must say, I found that odd too. It's highly unusual for a new user's first major edit to be nomination of an article for deletion and only 10 20 minutes after joining WP. Assuming good faith, perhaps DaveBury135 has edited before as an IP? Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to say this, but in this era of iTunes and downloads, it might be time to review the 'gold' criterion. By the way, what the heck does "been placed on rotation nationally" mean? Peridon (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RIAA certification indicates that singles can be certified gold for 500,000 paid downloads, just like they can be certified gold for 500,000 physical singles. So gold "records" are still going to be issued, and they will still be meaningful accomplishments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Rotation nationally' - I'd assume this means on some national radio station's playlist? Might be wrong though. Spike iron (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources already included in the article indicate that WP:N is met. Oh, and AFD is not the place to discuss the criteria set at WP:MUSIC. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 13:10, 11 January 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.