Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimestone


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chimestone

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable subject per WP:BAND. Article seems to have been created for advertising/promotional purposes only. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing to establish notability. No references.  Activity described only in the 1990s and The Killers is listed as an influence, a notable band established in 2002.  It doesn't add up.  Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No reliable sources covering the band. Note that Talk:Chimestone has a message asserting some local prominence, so there is the possibility of meeting citerion 7 from WP:BAND, but there's no sources that would verify that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - I was in the band (Ryan Schuehle) and we played for several years in Seattle back in the early 90's. We cut a CD at Bad Animals (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/chimestone) and had a small, but loyal following.  We have since reunited and wanted to get some web presence ... and Wikipedia is a great resource for any band as far as history, etc!  The Killers reference should not have been put in with respect to the 90's ... so that will come out.  Someone compared us to them recently and so in it went ... our bad!  --209.67.107.10 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - Forgot to add my signature! Hopefully Chimestone doesn't get deleted ... we truly are a real band and love our work!  Ryan --Rschuehle (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia might not be your way to a stronger web presence. See WP:PROMOTION. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We know that! But it is one of many ways to show history of your band on the internet, yes?  Chimestone was and is a real band that has history?  Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? --209.67.107.10 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Existence alone is an insufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nobody is really questioning whether Chimestone is real. What is being questioned is notability as defined generally (WP:N), and specifically for bands (WP:BAND).  Where is the coverage in reliable sources about the band?  If you have any, please put them forward here for evaluation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be provided which show that Chimestone was considered by the press to be a significant band in at least one period of their history. Note that WP:MUSIC has very specific requirements, and there is no indication that they are met by Chimestone. For example 'two or more albums on a major label'. Chimestone has just one CD so far, and it appears to be self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some old, yet hopefully reliable sources: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930402&slug=1693794 ... http://search.nwsource.com/search?from=ST&query=chimestone&searchtype=network. I know I'm in the minority here, but there are a lot of bands in Wikipedia that don't have 'two or more albums on a major label'?  And I would argue that some bands on Indie labels are just as important as those on major? --Rschuehle (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That article is not very substantial. If there was more coverage, and outside of the local entertainment scene type articles, a stronger case could be made.  The second link is just some search results.  As far as I can see, they are just event listings.  And please, only one !vote per customer.  If you have additional commentary, use a prefix such as "comment". -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 9 March 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.