Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courrier (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   delete. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Courrier (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced article about a band with no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to a notability claim here, in fact, is having been named "Band of the Month" by a media outlet which generally has next to nothing to do with music at all (and still isn't actually properly sourced.) Delete unless a major sourcing upgrade can be performed. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might say, "They formed in 2009 and since have been featured dozens of times ranging from in The Vampire Diaries to NFL commercials. In April 2014, they were ESPN's Band of The Month.", but it is unsourced, so it still can't pass WP:NMUSIC, right? EMachine03 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The band would pass WP:NMUSIC if it met any of the criteria listed there. Whether or not the article contains sources is not relevant to the band's notability. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true; a band only passes NMUSIC if the claim that it passes NMUSIC is actually cited to a reliable source. Musicians and/or their promotional teams do have a tendency to make inflated "hype" claims (e.g. "hit" status for a song that got played a few times on their local radio station, but never appeared on any of the singles charts that can actually confer notability on a song), so at least the basic claim of notability does have to be properly referenced to count as valid, even if the rest of the article isn't up to FA status yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a band could pass NMUSIC without even having an article here if any one of the criteria there is verifiably met ('verifiable' and 'cited' are not the same thing). --Michig (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd hope that more people wanting to write a new article about a band would measure that band against NMUSIC first to see if they qualify for an article or not — it would save us all the hassle of having to delete all the garage bands who repost their EPKs here in the hopes of getting "discovered". But NMUSIC is not fundamentally a property of the band per se, but a yardstick against which we measure the quality of an article about the band — so until we actually have an article about the band to measure, the band's nominal passage or failure of NMUSIC is a moot point. And NMUSIC does say, right in its own introduction, that the basic claim of notability has to be verifiable in a reliable source. The article doesn't have to attain GA or FA status right off the bat, but the basic claim of passing NMUSIC does have to be sourced, not merely asserted, to actually pass NMUSIC. Because guess what, sometimes bands overinflate their claims of notability in order to sound more notable than they are — so we need to be able to verify whether the claim of notability is actually true or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was unable to find much coverage of the band - there's a short Rolling Stone bio that confirms some of the statements in the article, but beyond that just these:, , , - I'm not sure they're all reliable sources and it's a bit thin, so unless someone can find more I doubt that the band is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the Rolling Stone bio looks very much like it was just summarized from their own EPK, rather than being any form of substantive coverage actually written and edited by anybody who actually works for Rolling Stone. Bearcat (talk)


 * Their album A Violent Flame was reviewed in CCM Magazine. (Conner, Matt. "Reviews & New Releases: Indie: Courrier: A Violent Flame", CCM Magazine (May 2011): p. 42.) Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - the top hits for a Google search (I tried Google news too, and got nothing) were their Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts. Not a promising sign that they come anywhere near attaining notability.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 July 2014 (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.