Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadway (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 -- I hope I'm going out on a limb with this one -- & against not only consensus, but Beeblebrox's otherwise convincing point that this is actually a re-creation of an article that has been deleted thrice. That said, the group just squeaks over the notability line (per WP:NMUSIC) because of its association with two notable artists -- Craig Owens & Jonny Craig -- on its Kingdoms album. Had the article been properly wikified, their association would have been obvious. (And why doesn't anyone ever rely on print publications like Rolling Stone or NME to prove notability instead of only websites? That would make deciding notability on unfamiliar genres like "post-hardcore" much easier.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadway (Band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Sources provided are either primary or unreliable. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no coverage in reliable sources, both the Sputnikmusic and AbsolutePunk references are of the amateur, user-submitted variety. Postrock1 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are sufficient in the context, stated as sources of "user ratings". Sources could be nothing but primary in the context. Other primary sources include nterviews with the band; these too are sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden234 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. Coverage in Sputnikmusic and AbsolutePunk would normally warrent a keep vote from me; however since, in this case, these are unprofessional reviews this leaves no coverage in reliable sources and thus a delete vote. Of course if some were found I would change my vote, cheers, Postrock1 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, I understand. The information and references have been replaced by reliable information from a professional music review.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:BAND #5 in that they are signed with a reasonably notable label with a history and roster of notable artists. References in this article are a significant problem that needs to be addressed however. RadioFan (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Surely they don't qualify? WP:BAND #5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). They have only released one album. And Uprising Records hardly seems to be "one of the more important indie labels." Postrock1 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' I'll defer to other's judgement on the importance of this label and change my !vote if this is an unimportant label. The presence of Fall Out Boy on that label caught my eye but I'm certainly no expert on indie music. --RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Fall Out Boy release caught my eye too, but if you have a look at the Fall Out Boy article, they only released their debut album on this label. I quote from the albums page (here) "Fall Out Boy's debut album has had almost no mainstream attention, and it has not reached any charts. Also, no singles were released from this album. The original release is not featured on the Official Fall Out Boy Website, rather the remastered edition. The band has not performed, if any, notable live shows with songs from this album. Many reviewers, such as Allmusic, consider "Take This to Your Grave" as Fall Out Boy's first album, possibly due to "Evening Out with Your Girlfriend" being a mini-LP or unknown. Also, in the booklet of "Believers Never Die", they start off with the making of "Take This to Your Grave", completely omitting "Evening Out with Your Girlfriend". Seems like everyone, including the band and the music press, act like this album didn't exist. I hadn't heard of it either, I was under the impression that Take This to Your Grave was their first *shrug*. I guess notability is WP:NOTINHERITED anyway. Postrock1 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment notability is not inherited but we do need some way of determining if this label helps this band meet WP:BAND or not.  It would be nice to have some other opinions here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If you look on Uprising Records website you will see Broadway is their main band, besides notability of the label shouldn't particularly matter. The article is required, you can see from google predictions that the band broadway is searched often, with many searchers looking for the wikipedia article. On the front page alone there are two questions on yahoo answers looking for Broadways' wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden234 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment if there were references to significant coverage in reliable sources in the article, the label wouldn't enter into this discussion, but right now its all I'm finding to help this band meet notability guidelines. Take a look at those guidelines and see if you can help.  How often they are searched for in Google or any other search engine or how much hits there are doesn't help here, Wikipedia makes no use of this in determining notability.--RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Coverage not found. The claim they pass WP:MUSIC#5 by just signing is laughable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Important procedural note An article on this band was previously deleted via afd in 2009, see Articles for deletion/Broadway (band). That title was salted and presumably this re-creation was made at this title with the intent to evade the create protection rather than going through proper channels and requesting it be lifted. I am going to have a look at the deleted article to see how similar it is to the current recreation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The band is growing larger, and releasing a second studio album. Sources have already shown that there is enough significant detail in reports for the group that I can say that they are notable enough to have their own article. And also without further to say, only reason why the Broadway (band) slot was salted was mainly because their record label had done repeated attempts to make an article for them. Only 3 times was the article ever created excluding this time which isn't as bad as an offense in comparison to articles that have been attempted to of been created more than 8 times, of which usually is the main reason behind salting articles. -- GunMetal Angel  19:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Being deleted three times is usually enough to get something salted. It should be anyway. However, having looked at the deleted version it is not sufficiently similar to this re-creation to merit speedy deletion. If the decision here is to delete this title should be salted as well. If the decision is to keep this article should be moved to the currently protected title to conform to our naming conventions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added more references. Everything is now strongly referenced. I don't understand why this article would not be kept. They're a big band, about to release their second album and they have a huge following. And this article should definitely not be salted because of the record label trying to force a previous article about the band onto wikipedia when they were far less well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden12345 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop creating new accounts and please start signing your posts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2011 (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.