Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merit (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, default to Keep. Waltontalk 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merit (band)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable band per WP:BAND on a non-notable local label. One article in a daily college newspaper is the only reference, and even that is questionable as a non-trivial published work (see WP:BAND). Closenplay 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * delete. It is likely that in the future the band may warrant their own article, but as for right now it fails the notability standard for bands. Firestorm 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article lacks merit.  (Sorry) JulesH 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - If you will note it does have an outside source, see here. Second if you read WP:BAND close it says, A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Number one is It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. -- Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι  τ  оr   22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I did note the outside source in my nomination (see above). And if you read a little closer, you might notice WP:BAND says "…been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". "Multiple"; not "one". It also says "An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis", which is what I was alluding to in my nomination. Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks fine to me. Stop trying to delete everything from Wikipedia.  Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it. Xanucia 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you going to spam every AfD with keep !votes that offer no rationale for said keep !vote? Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't want to take this the wrong way, so please clear this up for me—are you saying that I'm "trying to delete everything on Wikipedia" or are you saying "let's all of us stop trying to delete everything"? Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't you. he posted a very similar message to four or five AfDs in succession.  Resolute 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Phew! I was afraid for a second there that I was gonna have my feelings hurt. Closenplay 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BAND. Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Band and is also crystalballery. We don't do up and comming unless the band has been discovered by a giant of the music scene, signed to a massive label and is certain of future success. A1octopus 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Added 3 Syracuse newspaper references and a web news article to assist in notability. Removed some of the furure-isms to address crystalballery. --Bren talk 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm wavering a bit on my nom due to the additional info. Still, does local notability cut it? It looks like the new references are two album reviews, a press release-type thing about them playing a hockey game, and an article about them getting their music on purevolume.com. I'm not swayed enough to rescind my nom, but I did want to credit the additional work done since my nom. Closenplay 10:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisting due to sources being added late. --W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, some notability is established through a couple sources but I'm not certain if it's enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BAND Rackabello 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet criteria.--Svetovid 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've decided to come down on the inclusionist side of things. I think that the added references are enough to meet WP:BAND—multiple non-trivial references. Closenplay 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment re the two deletes after the AfD relist: can I get an explaination of why this article fails WP:BAND? Point one states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The article has now been modified to meet this criteria, so I'd just appreciate a little more on your reasoning. Thanks. --Bren talk 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it still doesn't fit the criteria. Seems to me like most of this stuff comes from a primary source, which is the band's website.  You're gonna need to get more secondary and tertiary sources.  MySpace doesn't count. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:BAND, it doesn't need to meet criteria (plural)—only one criterion, which it does: [s]ubject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: Most of the Post-Standard articles are indeed non-trivial, combined with the article from the college newspaper (which WP:BAND says should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis regarding triviality, and that is too long of an article to consider trivial) certainly fits the bill. I also see on the band's website (and it could likely be backed up with old club schedules online) that the band did an East Coast (New York through Georgia) tour in February (which would cover another of the criteria). Closenplay 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The well put-together layout of the article makes me overlook the "soft" notability. Unless we're running out of trees to print the hardcopy Wikipedia, this is way, way down on my list of things that should be chucked.--Mike18xx 01:26, 18 June 2007 (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.