Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyce Avenue (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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Boyce Avenue (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Band with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:MUSIC; article is sourced entirely to myspace, youtube, facebook and last.fm (which aren't acceptable). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE being followed. Plenty of coverage at Allmusic, Google News, etc. --Michig (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor had already followed WP:BEFORE through step 12 and PRODded the article. After it was dePRODded, I brought it here as a contested PROD per WP:CONTESTED.    — Jeff G. ツ 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're bringing an article here it's up to you to follow WP:BEFORE. People put appallingly ill-judged PROD tags on articles all the time. Can you point me to the section in WP:CONTESTED that states that when a PROD tag is removed from an article the next step is to take it to AFD? Many articles have prods removed because the subject is notable. I indicated when I deprodded it that I found coverage - you could have either raised it on the talk page or asked me what coverage I found rather than bringing it straight to AFD. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

*Delete - Unable to see how they meet WP:MUSIC - willing to change it it can be shown how. Codf1977 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Via coverage: |AVENUE&sql=11:jpfwxzqgldhe~T1 Allmusic, Sun Herald, Herald Tribune, Manila Bulletin, Philipine Star - all look to be reliable sources, and there's further coverage in less obvious sources:, , , , although they're good enough for Google News. Given this coverage, I really don't see what the problem is re. notability, or why nobody else could find these sources.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral - that is indeed coverage, some less significant than others, close to #1 on WP:MUSIC though not sure they pass it. Codf1977 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND as this group has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." As per Codf1977's observation,, which I respect and trust, while this band has received coverage, it is not significant and seems trivial. moreno oso (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Substantial articles specifically about the band in newspapers such as the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The Philippine Star cannot be considered 'trivial coverage'.--Michig (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Boyce Avenue. They just released a full-length album on Universal Republic last week; the sourcing in the article right now is lame, but Michig's findings above are sufficient to substantiate them as notable. Chubbles (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * keep (weak) - needs improvement as regards sourcing but the recent album and universal deal assert a fair degree of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources found by User: Michig appear to indicate notability. Should be moved to Boyce Avenue, per User: Chubbles.-- Pink Bull  20:40, 27 June 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.