Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Parade


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Parade

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

NN band that gets recreated. I want an AfD so we can delete this period. mboverload @ 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A band with two million views on Myspace is hardly a NN band.--Baselineace (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the only thing notable about them is MySpace you have just proved my point. --mboverload @ 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Being number one on PureVolume is also a pretty big deal. Playing Bamboozle is a big deal. Being number one on radio stations is a big deal. Being courted by major (not indie) labels is a big deal. Being featured on AbsolutePunk.net is a big deal. Holiday Parade is a big deal, and they're not getting any smaller any time soon. --Baselineace (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they have been played on the radio that makes them very much notable. Please provide sources for that claim. --mboverload @  05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been played here on this station, which has broken many big artists.--Baselineace (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That appears to be an online radio site. Please read Notability (music) and let us know if Holiday Parade fits into any of those categories of notability.  It is on iTunes though, they sound awesome. --mboverload @  06:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is one of the largest radio stations on the Internet per Shoutcast. That would constitute a major radio network.--Baselineace (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While that is an impressive list of accomplishments, I could find zero reliable, third party sources to prove these claims verifiability. Nothing in Google, nothing at Allmusic, Billboard, NME, Kerrang!. Nada. Article fails notability per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They have received airplay on radio networks and have also been charted on PureVolume, which is internationally recognizable.--Baselineace (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. So you keep saying. But just in case you missed mboverload telling you the same thing in the above conversation, where's the proof.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this?--Baselineace (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, sure did. And once again I'll direct you WP:RS where they explain what third-party sources means.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just tossing my 2c in here, but Amazon.com appears to be selling their two albums, as well as an indie music review. Torinir ( Ding my phone   My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral, subject to change. Alright, I'll play the game, grand claims will have to be matched with grand sources, let's see them. Equendil Talk 10:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC) . Delete it is. Equendil Talk 15:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Strummer25 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations from independent, reliable sources are added. Without them, the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless they are shown to pass WP:BAND. Just having played at "The Bamboozle" doesn't make it past #9. Myspace is not an indicator of notability. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell, the band currently fails WP:MUSIC. Myspace and PureVolume just simply aren't enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V and WP:RS. MySpace, PureVolume and a Wikipedia do not qualify as reliable, and do not assert notability, and thus the article fails WP:MUSIC]. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC. One of the main reasons that "x hits on y website" isn't an inclusion criterion is that it's extremely easy to fake, and anyone with a modicum of computer knowledge could whip up a little script and get a zillion myspace views (or whatever) within minutes.  We rely on hard media coverage, industry awards, chart positions, and such for a reason. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete' because the article basically fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC.  abf  /talk to me/  16:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSIC. This band is in rotation on major radio networks and has been the subject of radio programming.--Baselineace (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Internet radio isn't the same as real radio, as you've already been told above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is this documented?--Baselineace (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This band has over 17,000 listeners on Last.fm. You may argue that last.fm data can be manipulated too, but there are hundreds of Wikipedia artist pages for country musicians who charted once back in the Eighties, and are currently listened to by 10 people on last.fm. They meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia but apparently no-one cares about them. Then this young band with a huge buzz around them should not be listed? This makes no sense.
 * Apparently the band performed on FOX News Boston (see the Wikipedia article for more details).--Baselineace (talk) 20:53, 28 September 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.