Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David and the Giants


 * 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   No consensus, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

David and the Giants

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NN band. I've been unable to find any third-party references that were not promotional. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, they pass WP:MUSIC Their 1983 Riders in the Sky album was released on Epic Records (now part of SonyBMG), and their 1982 David and The Giants one was released on Columbia Records (also now part of SonyBMG). The Long Time Coming album was also received a 2.5 star review on Almusic.com. Not to say the article doesn't need a damn good clean up mind you.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both albums were released on Priority Records - not a " a major label or one of the more important indie labels" as required by WP:MUSIC.  They became part of Columbia/SonyBMG catalogs after Priority was acquired.  Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have yo got a link for that info, 'cause I was just going off the Allmusic site?   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia articles for these 2 albums have recently been deleted. I've restored them to my userspace to answer your question: User:Toddst1/David and the Giants (album) and User:Toddst1/Riders in the Sky (album). It's what I used to make my comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: If both records were still carried in the back catalog, then the band would pass, but with a release by an independent that was later acquired (with no indication of whether the catalog was picked up at the same time), we can't tell.  Allmusic listing is in its favor, but it appears that we're looking at a fairly minor act.  AMG's mission is to have every band that has put out a record on a label, but that's not Wikipedia's mission.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the article states, the band is currently under a non-notable label Giant World. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Current label is irrelevant to past notability. Radiohead are technically currently completely label-less! Does that make them even less notable than this band? No, it does not.  tomasz.  16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure what you're saying. The claim was made that they are notable because they're in the SonyBMG catalog. The point is that they weren't signed to a major Label, rather SonyBMG acquired the complete Piority catalog. Their new music is being released under a WP:NN label. Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what label their new music is being released under, as the acquisition of the catalogue by SonyBMG equates to them having past material released by a major and that therefore they pass C5 comfortably. There's no retrospective restriction on C5.  tomasz.  09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not at all clear that acquisition of an entire label's catalog equates to a re-release of material or imparts any additional notabiility at all to any specific artists in the catalog. Can you explain? Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems pretty clear to me that such an acquisition brings the whole catalogue under the umbrella of a major label.  tomasz.  17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; The major label requirement is to use the judgement of a major label; when that label buys a whole catalog, it may only be for a few bands, with no judgement implied about the rest of the riff-raff that comes along with the deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What Prosfilaes says seems to be "common sense". Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's at least arguable that Priority was a more important indie before the buyout by Sony BMG. Even if not, the two are now under the mantle of Sony BMG and thus pretty firmly notable. The AMG listing seals it.  tomasz.  16:53, 27 August 2008 (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.