Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Sea (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   no consensus. Ged UK  13:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Little Sea (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Believe that they fail WP:BAND, non notable. Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with nomination. Most references I could find are for band's own tumbler and instagram accounts. AlanS (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominated for speedy due to them being completely insignificant. AlanS (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think a top 20 hit on the Australian iTunes chart is "completely insignificant". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - it's almost too soon for an article, but the band seems to scrape into criteria #2 of WP:NMUSIC by having a top 5 hit in Australia. My only concern is the source specified is not an official Apple one, and Australian chart stats are not my area of expertise. One news source suggests the EP hit the top 20. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * iTunes charts are not WP:GOODCHARTS and are not Australia's national charts. That would be ARIA charts. No pass on #2. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That guideline only gives a brief passing mention to iTunes and says very little on what the problem is. Are the charts made up? Are their methods of calculation impossible to ascertain? Do they have charts for just about anything and are completely indiscriminate? Or something else? I'd quite like to know the answer to this, as bands seem to be increasingly citing iTunes charts all over the place. It must mean something, the question is - what? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete. Very little independent coverage, and the cited chart is not acceptable. However, it would have preferable to leave that ref in during the deletion discussion.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, this may be a suitable candidate for the draft namespace. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A more recent source (not the unreliable one discussed earlier) published yesterday suggests the EP hit number one in Australia. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Weak keep per significant coverage in The Music and in the Penrith City Gazette. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete Have they got three references or not? If they have then keep, but I think the refs are all from the same "source", so get rid. Jodosma (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are indeed three references. I don't understand what you mean "from the same 'source'"... Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 2 September 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.