Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory and the Island


 * 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. Seems like notability is barely satisfied given the uncontested arguments by Michig and Richard3120. Article quality appears to be poor enough (per Richard3120) to merit an AfD-cleanup tag and a merger or other rearrangement may be discussed on the talk page (per Michig and Shawn in Montreal). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rory and the Island

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Minimally sourced and advertorially toned article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are charting on iTunes, which is deprecated by WP:BADCHARTS as not satisfying NMUSIC's "charting hit" criterion (the hit has to be on an IFPI-certified general chart, not on an online music store) and completely unsourced claims of touring (but even the touring criterion explicitly requires there to have been reliable source coverage about the tour, and does not hand a band a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie just because the article states that they toured.) And the "referencing" here consists of a single article in the band's own hometown newspaper which verifies that they exist but fails to support any of the content after the introduction. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is automatically entitled to have an article just because they exist; reliable source coverage verifying one or more specific accomplishments that satisfy NMUSIC is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I will source more evidence to backup some of the content here. However, I disagree with your comments regarding iTunes not being valid for charting hit criteria. That is extremely disrespectful to the modern music industry, so I contest that. Please allow me 24 hours to source further online information to backup the touring claims etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a Google news search really does reveal nothing, from what I can see. As for this "extremely disrespectful" slight to the "modern music industry," somehow I think I will Apple survive, relatively untraumatized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment for now..., it's nothing to do with being "disrespectful", and they are not Bearcat's personal comments – as per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BADCHARTS the iTunes chart is not considered a valid chart for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Richard3120 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also note that evidence that the band toured as support to famous acts does not demonstrate that the band itself is notable – see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And unless you are a completely different Ian Sheldon, you might want to declare your WP:COI as the person who created the band's official website. Richard3120 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't being personal in my disrespectful comment either. It just seems a out of date approach to the music industry, but thats up to Wikipedia I guess. Its got nothing to do with Apple surviving or not so I don't understand that comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because your comment was an example of WP:Drama. The nominator wasn't being "disrespectful" of anything -- he's simply citing official policy when it comes to the relevancy of iTunes as a music chart. And you're not defending the "modern music industry," you are by all appearances using Wikipedia as a platform for a band or artist that you have a business interest in, if I understand correctly. So you're not going to succeed here with hyperbole like that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the case at all Shawn. And no, you are right, I wasn't defending the Modern Music industry. I was making an observation. I have since received some much more constructive and helpful pointers regarding the article, so have been working on them. Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you Michig. I am in the process of yet sourcing more credible information to backup this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge to The Revs. Arguably enough coverage to keep, but probably not enough to be said that it can't be included in the Revs article. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that they're two different bands. An article on the common denominator -- frontman/songwriter-of-local-soccer anthem -- Rory Gallagher might be the strongest case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shawn. The reason Rory decided to name the band, Rory and The Island, is because,as you probably already know, there are a number of famous Rory Gallaghers (one of which also was a musician) so it avoids any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have ways to WP:Disambiguate, if the article was kept under this name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, Would be ideal to keep the name of the band though, as the band isn't just Rory Gallagher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: OK, Mr Sheldon, I think you've convinced me that the article should stay, on account of the no. 11 placing in the Irish Charts of the single "Jimmy's Winning Matches" (the website cited isn't all that great but it's correct, as can be seen on the official Irish Charts archive here) and the mentions in Hot Press magazine like this album review, although the first source you cite doesn't say anything about "a triumphant return" or give a rating for the album. Both this and the Revs article need a lot of clearing up and better sourcing, though. Richard3120 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard, I'll see if I can find anything else relating to the claim of the Triumphant Return comment. Appreciate your time looking at this article for me,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 6 September 2016 (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.