Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casimer&casimir


 * 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   delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Casimer&casimir

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One cited source (Pitchfork) appears somewhat reliable (they list editors and writers on their "Staff" page), but the mention here is trivial. No other reliable sources found. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) talk, Dennis & others, the fact that the duo exists and is notable is not speculation: 1. Arguably the most influential modern music press, Pitchfork, maintains an artist page for Casimer & Casimir http://pitchfork.com/artists/29948-casimer-casimir/ 2. The All Music Guide has an entry for Casimer & Casimir http://www.allmusic.com/artist/casimer-casimir-p2556089 3. One of the highest regard public radio stations, KCRW, has Casimer & Casimir in rotation http://newmedia.kcrw.com/tracklists/index.php?search_type=0&date_from=01%2F15%2F2012&host=Eric+J.+Lawrence&date_to=&artist=&channel=Simulcast&label= 4. Casimer & Casimir is being noted by international sources in Italy (http://www.frizzifrizzi.it/2012/01/22/sunday-morning-38/), France (http://www.agence-flair.fr/2655565/FLAIR), and UK (http://soundsxp.com/artman2/publish/mp3/Casimer_Casimir_-_In_The_New_Year_Walkmen_cover_free_MP3.shtml). 5. The notable songwriter, Casimer Pascal, from PAS/CAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAS/CAL) is a part of this duo. This new musical venture is notable because it is his first utterance since the split of PAS/CAL. Do a google search for more...
 * DELETE: Besides the lack of concrete information, the article is in need of a rewrite as it reads more like a story than an encyclopedia article. Additionally the group has been active for less than a year (appears to be more like 6 months) and has only thus far "released" 2 singles (with the third to be released on 15 February 2012) which also brings notability into question.--Ctoshw (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete short of verification, most of this is speculation. Notability isn't firmly established.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dennis Brown. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, could one of you kind editors edit the page so it is in accordance to Wiki standards? Or give exact instruction,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggyhajduk (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 February 2012‎


 * Unfortunately, none of the sources you have linked does anything significant towards establishing notability.
 * 1) Pitchfork's page contains the title and author's name for a track, and a copy of its cover, and the title and cover of a video. That is all. No matter how strongly "arguable" is the case for Pitchfork being "influential", that is zero evidence of notability.
 * 2) Allmusic, as its name suggests, tries to be as inclusive as possible, and so is pretty undiscriminating. Virtually anyone and everything that has any connection with music publishing can get on.
 * 3) "Highest regard" is a subjective assessment. I know nothing about this radio station, though I see it is based on a college campus. However, I don't think that even a "highest regard" radio station including the pair's music in its play list goes very far towards satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
 * 4) Two of the "international sources" you mention do no more than include the name on a list. One of them is an agency, and doubtfully an independent source. The third "international source" is merely a download site offering a recording by Casimer & Casimir.
 * 5) The fact that a band includes a person with a connection to another band is not much evidence of notability, even if that other band is notable. It is perfectly possible for a person to have connections to two bands, one of which is notable and the other isn't. However, even that statement is premised on "even if that other band is notable", whereas the article PAS/CAL does not convince me that it is notable. That article has no inline citations, many of its external links are to non-independent or non-reliable sources, dead links, pages barely mentioning PAS/CAL, and pages not mentioning them at all, and nothing in the article gives the impression that they were very significant.
 * Unfortunately, in asking us to "edit the page so it is in accordance to Wiki standards", you seem to be making a mistake that many editors new to editing Wikipedia make. The problem lies not with how the article is written, but with the subject of the article. No amount of rewriting an article on a subject which is not notable will turn that subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the reasons given above. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise an obscure startup band that is trying to become established but has not yet done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk) James, could you explain the inclusion of these Wiki entries using your same criteria?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Shame - Seems to be an obvious situation where, "a person [has] connections to two bands, one of which is notable and the other isn't." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForeverRedeemed/F.R.E.E._(band) - No references to any sources supporting "notability". Seems completely like a promo page written by the band.
 * You could always nominate those, looks like they may be candidates as well. Assuming you looked for alternate sources before you do so.  So many undersourced articles, so little time.  Some need deleting, some need sourcing.  Oh, and you might be interested in What about this other article which explains why comparing a poorly sourced article to another poorly sourced article isn't a valid argument to keep.  We all know there are other problem articles on Wikipedia, it isn't news.  THIS discussion is only about this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk) Dennis, it took me all of five minutes to find listings that obviously fail to me your criteria...but still the got up & remain. Whereas the one I'm working on is about a duo that has references all over the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggyhajduk (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should have spent those five minutes sourcing this article. I told you, it doesn't matter what other articles exist, this is the article on the block right now. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it took you five minutes to find just two articles deserving deletion then you weren't working very fast. There are loads of them out there. However, thanks to your efforts, there are now two fewer than there were. Thanks for pointing them out: it is mainly by editors such as yourself finding such articles and drawing administrators' attention to them that unsuitable articles get deleted. However, the existence of some unsuitable articles does not justify the existence of other unsuitable articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, no evidence of notability seems like a promo article for a band trying to start. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Pitchfork is a reliable source but a two-sentence blurb is a stretch to call significant coverage. Without evaluating the reliability of the the other sites, they all contain no more than a trivial mention, except for Allmusic. There's no rush or deadline to create articles; I'd like to see more substantial coverage in multiple sources before being satisfied about the subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow  Talk 16:59, 12 February 2012 (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.