Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Calm Down


 * 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)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

City Calm Down

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band. Fails the notability criteria for bands and musicians. - The   Magnificentist  10:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The band meets several of the notability standards stated at WP:BAND ZiggyCross 11:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyCross (talk • contribs) — ZiggyCross (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Such as? - The   Magnificentist  11:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

*delete fails WP:BAND. No notable awards, notable band members nor notable albums. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * change to keep based on additional sourcing found. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Below is coverage I found.
 * Reviewed by Rolling Stone
 * They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewed by Rolling Stone
 * They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewed by Rolling Stone
 * They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewed by Rolling Stone
 * They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Their album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. Meets WP:BAND.Boneymau (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I apologize in advance for this lengthy post, but it needs the length to explain my (so far) minority opinion. I have worked in music management and both ends of promotion. I wonder if editors voting “keep” are looking at these references with a similar analytical eye. I checked all the references I could (a few lead to dead links) that were provided in the article and by user duffbeerforme (talk) above (thank you for your effort) They are of the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL variety: announcements of releases, appearances, first person interviews of members talking about the same, local and small time reviews, etc. All the standard stuff any professional band would (and should) have, but lacks evidence of non-promotionally-tinged, third party coverage in any significant number. This kind of coverage reveals a band that has been paying their dues for a while, building a following, gradually inching upward towards their first significant release. But I don’t see signs of having “made it” yet at an encyclopedic important level. For a Melbourne band with a fanbase and a label’s promotional backing to enter the Australian-only chart at #25 is what one would expect, reflective of pre-orders. To fall nearly 50 places a week later once genuine sales are tallied is also normal. To hover in these lower reaches for the next year or so is also typical of a hard working band, generally peaking upward with a particular appearance of some sort (often times a radio or TV interview), but not an encyclopedic worthy achievement. Please note for those unfamiliar with a “hitseeker” or “heatseeker” type chart: they chronicle positions of music not in a noteworthy chart, but rather tracking where it is positioned to making the chart. In other words, the example cited here as being #8” translates to really being 8 positions away, or #108 if one included it among records that comprise the Top 100. Not sure what numbers were are talking here for this Australian chart, could be Top 40 or Top 200; regardless, a “hitseeker” entry is hardly an indicator of an important achievement in record sales; it’s simply valuable knowledge for retail professionals)
 * Note the review in Rolling Stone: at a glance this had me thinking, “oh..okay..THAT certainly convey’s notability…” until I pursued the link and recognized this is not the esteemed version of Rolling Stone, but rather one of the many licensed international editions, not produced under the editorial stewardship of the mother company. In essence, the content here is the additional “local interest” unique to the market where a particular edition is sold. For notability purposes, it carries a clout similar to being reviewed in one of the other local coverage sources evidenced here. Of course local coverage in itself doesn’t minimize a claim to notability, but—again—everything coming up in these sources simply re-affirms existence rather than notability. If someone can add some genuine “meaty” evidence of notability, I’ll gladly change my ivote. Even if the only thing that can be proved is they are a top band in Melbourne and nothing else. But I’m not seeing any such claim.
 * The only thing that might indicate importance is an Allmusic profile. But its easy to misread why a band may have a profile. Although an AllMusic listing at one time was a reasonable indicator of importance, that changed a few years back when the company was sold and they turned over their content management to the TiVo/Rovi databse. Now the only criteria for an AllMusic listing is to have produced a product available for retail distribution. AllMusic’s primary purpose is to no longer catalog music acts of distinction; rather, it is to aid a retailer’s marketing efforts. This results in entries for bands that simply released an album: they may otherwise fail to meet every single criteria for wikipedia notably. Considering every other reference to this band is coming up short in the notability argument, I get the feeling that their Allmusic profile is among the beneficiaries of this low standard. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Album charted at #25 in Australia. It doesn't matter if it didn't sell a single copy the following week, they meet WP:BAND comfortably because having a charting album is a core qualifier. This is one of a number of recent AFD nominations that seems to be forgetting that AFD is for judging notability based on established policy, not personal criteria that work outside of that, like how far an album fell in the second week. KaisaL (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I won’t ague your points about following policy, which is why this up and coming band will likely have it’s wikipage saved before they’ve truly earned it. I just needed to air some real world knowledge on this topic to hopefully affect change to this policy. As long as I’ve been here I still don’t know where and how these policies are decided. Is there a special place for me to give this input? I’d be grateful for direction if you have it, KaisaL (talk). Are wikipedia policies set by people who have experience or learned knowledge in respective fields? Sometimes it seems not. The notable bands criteria needs a serious re-evaluation. The chart criteria is especially flawed. We once represented a band whose debut album logged in the lower reaches of the old Cashbox magazine charts based on preorders. The album was pulled from release at the 11th hour for legal reasons—yet it still charted! It never came out—never earned a dime, never heard by the public—yet there is was at #one hundred and something. We always laughed about that one. There are more stories I could tell. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually the talk page of the specific policy would be a good starting place, but removing chart placings won't get much support, I don't think. I remember you nominated Jorja Smith too which was a strange nomination, I don't know, maybe you just hold musicians to much stricter criteria than the community as a whole. I agree that general press release spam like streams and new video shouldn't count for as much as it should, though. KaisaL (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, KaisaL (talk). One thing, though: I believe you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never nominated anyone. I’m not even sure how to do that. My expertise on the ins and outs of wikipedia is limited, and I’m still learning my way around after a couple of years. But as for musicians, you are correct. Check out my brief statement on my user page. I have a special interest because I’ve promoted performers and I recognize how the game is played (or was, since my experience pre-dates the online digital era, though much is still the same.) I am amazed that wikipedia editors often vote keep without realizing how much smoke and mirrors are involved in the game. Regarding charts, an artist’s release can debut on the charts in the 100’s based on sales to a retailer, not a consumer. These are speculative purchases made by retailers based on the kind of sales hype that I used to do. The release can wind up sitting unwanted, never purchased, and eventually returned or "cut out". A flop, in other words. A tell-tale sign is when a chart shows a release in a high position that falls off the chart the next week (or drops about 50 spots, like these guys). It’s a shame wikipedia policy doesn’t understand that nuance of the game. As result, way too many truly unsuccessful, non notable artists are being given encyclopedic importance. It cheapens the integrity of wikipedia, in my opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per duffbeerforme; coverage in reliable sources (e.g.,, , , , , ). These (along with the top 25 chart placement) are sufficient in my view to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk  01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:BAND on multiple criteria per duffbeerforme and Gongshow.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies the requirements of WP:BAND. I think that this is on a completely different level to the example cited by ShelbyMarion above. Dan arndt (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. for these reasons: 1) Band has been covered by: The Age, The West Australian, Rolling Stone and the The Daily Mercury 2) The band's album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. I do recognize the concerns though of the person who gave the lengthy objection. Their Twitter following is about 1,800 followers which is not a lot. On the other hand, they do have 17,000 likes on their Facebook page. Google trends shows they did have a previous spike in interest for a period of time, but that has fallen.  There are over 60,000 Google search results for the band. Dean Esmay (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2017 (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.