Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M&S (production team)


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

M&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. Despite edit summary, I fail to see what is notable about a production team that has had only one charted song 15 years ago. Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage exists for this duo (snippet views available here, here, here, for example) and they had a Top 10 UK hit. One-hit wonders? Fair enough. But they meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 and 2 (not to mention 11, as the song was in rotation on BBC Radio 1, per the reference in the article). Whether the song charted 15 years ago, 50 years ago, or 1 year ago is not relevant, as notability is not temporary.  Gongshow   talk  07:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment. I agree that time is relative. For example, Frank Sinatra has been dead for some time now, and as such, has no current films, music, etc. but his body of work indicates notability. As far as I can tell, the people in this article are still alive and in a position to produce songs that receive critical and commercial acclaim. I see no indication of critical acclaim.  I have issues with a one hit wonder. If there is evidence that any of their other songs charted, even in the top 100, I would feel less strongly about this. But as written, it seems that their one charted song had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with luck or right place, right time ...  Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerns regarding talent, luck, or timing do not illustrate how these artists fail the above music notability criteria.  Gongshow   talk  17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that is why it was written as an opinion. I looked at the guidelines, because my first impression was that meeting three out of 11 criteria seemed to bolster my argument but I was wrong on that point. All I can say is that my minimum criteria and those of the people who developed the criteria are different. That is why I brought it here. My opinion on the subject should not be the be all to end all. I wifi be quiet now and let others weigh in. I have said all I can think of to say on the subject. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage, and a top ten hit makes them obviously of encyclopedic interest. Arguing that this should be deleted because they only had one hit makes no sense - there are plenty of notable artists that never had a hit at all. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2015 (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.