Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartman (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 (non-admin closure). Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cartman (band)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. NN, fails WP:Music, only 1 user seems to be editing this page.  En dl ess Dan  13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, may be vanity, probably Non-notable. Kfc 1864  talk  my edits 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this tends towards notability, checking for more sources. Doent appear to be a vanity or COI article, because only one ed has done the bulk of the contribution eds name doesnt appear to represent any of the band members.  Gnangarra 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * further The Australian 26 Jan 2002 SPIN DOCTOR by Ian Sheddan partial mention good detail includes comparison to Eskimo Joe  ...Cartman are rooted firmly in the modern basket, but don't yet have the finesse of an Eskimo Joe... another article The West Australian 1 July 1999 secondary coverage not sufficient to establish notability but supportive of information already in the article. Gnangarra 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * more Herald Sun 28 Feb 2002 By Mark Rasmussen. CD Reviews Following their previous two acclaimed EPs, Cartman dish out some very strong and solid performances on their debut long-player Go. Gnangarra 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As such I believe the band satisfies the notability criteria and should be retained. For the record I have no connection with the band or any of the band members. Dan arndt 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - suspect too much guess work in the nomination - check - - please research adequately before putting up these sort of noms - cheers SatuSuro 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a notable Australian indie music group and there seems to be more reliable sources out there, they're just hard to sort out because of the common name. I searched Factiva and the Australian/New Zealand Reference Centre and have found articles which mention them and their performances in very reliable sources like the Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the West Australian. Albeit, most were brief mentions of various performances, but there were non-trivial articles, such as the Herald Sun review of their album, as noted above by Gnangarra. If the strongest case for deletion is it "may" be a vanity article (COI being a guideline) and are "probably" not notable (notability also being a guideline), I prefer to err on the side of keeping. That the article has only one primary author does not strike me as a compelling reason to delete either; if it is now a reason for deletion, we have an awful lot of bios on major award winning Australian entertainers, sportspeople, businesspeople, politicians and other articles to start deleting (I know this because I've written plenty of such articles on my own and know of others who have done likewise). The most compelling test for me is the ability to source information in an article with verifiable and reliable sources and that would seem to be possible with this article with various editors finding more sources which we can now use to start sourcing it properly. Sarah 17:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, article states that they've apparently been added by a major Australian radio network and that they've won several awards in their category, which might be just enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the band meets a number of the notability criteria in that:
 * 1) the band has been subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works - as cited in some of the preceding comments.
 * 2) the band has toured nationally around Australia.
 * 3) has been nominated and won several awards/music competitions.
 * 4) has had a song used in a national television show.
 * 5) has had songs placed in ration nationally by a major radio network.
 * Keep notable enough band (I'd agree there are concerns, but this one just passes them - the use on national TV show Big Brother and Net50 coverage would be sufficient, Net50 would place it alongside both Australian and overseas alternative bands of the profile of Muse, Jet etc, while Big Brother would expose it to an audience well removed from its original scene. I'd further advise the nominator that one primary author is not a deletion criterion - most of my articles on obscure topics would get canned if that was the case. Many of our FAs have only been contributed to by more than one person once the peer review and evaluation components begin. Orderinchaos 02:54, 5 October 2007 (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.