Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixteen Cities


 * 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. I note that mentions in notable media are not the same as making a subject notable; sometimes, as in this case, they merely confirm the existence of the subject.'''  Frank  |  talk  04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sixteen Cities

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. It comes very close on multiple points, but that just isn't good enough.

The band has released multiple albums, but these don't help with the clause on albums, number five, which requires multiple albums on a major or important independent label. Of the three albums two have been self-released and one is on an unimportant indie label.

The band has also been on several radio stations, which might seem to fulfill clause 11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". The band hasn't been placed on rotation however - simply played. The radio stations in question hardly qualify as "major".

The band has played on notable tours, but doesn't seem to have gained major coverage from this (when major is defined, per WP:N, as multiple detailed sources). They have mentions, yes, but that is exactly what you'd expect and not good enough.

The band appears to fulfill the most important bit of WP:MUSIC ("Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") at first glance, but look again. Although the article is referenced multiple times they're all references to blogs, other non-notable sites such as minor internet radio stations, the record label and self-submitting sources such as garageband and youtube. In conclusion: fails WP:MUSIC, smack with hammer. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bravo for a well-researched and clearly expressed nom (though I don't see how the hammer reference is helpful). Anyway -- the first radio station listed appears to be Internet-only, and it's hard to imagine it reaches a lot of people (it looks like it's maintained by only a couple people as a hobby or very small business venture, hence it's likely there isn't much marketing going on there). The 105.9 station lists 3 references, none of which appear to meet WP:RS -- and more importantly, none of which appear to even mention the 105.9 station! Also, that station does not have a Wikipedia article, it's hard to assess whether it's a major one (but Spokane is not a big city, so it can't reach a ton of people.) There is not a single reference in the story that clearly meets WP:RS. Seems a clear delete. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "smack with hammer" is just a jokey reference to describing the admin tools as the "banhammer" (I know it's a deletion, but wth). Thanks for the nompliment :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Peteforsyth: great research in the nom. However, my view is that the extent of the information you've dug up is an indicator of the band's notability. Most importantly, much of this information comes from third-party sources, many of which are notable. While obviously not a platinum act, their inclusion in notable tours and mentions from non-internet radio play on several stations are verified by several notable sources. To me, their "mentions" in multiple articles on the tours and the radio play are sufficient--being placed on "rotation" is ill-defined and biased towards top40 commercial radio as many stations do not really maintain such rotations. Zachlipton (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many stations don't, no, but it requires rotation on radio networks, not just individual non-internet stations. The plays may simply be that - single plays, once on each station. I can't see any information "from third-party sources, many of which are notable" - references are divided between non-notable third-party sources (fails WP:RS), first-party sources (fails WP:RS) and user-submitted info like Garageband (fails WP:RS). Even if there are references that are third-party and reliable which attest to them being played on a radio station/whatever, the references are not going to cover them in detail. "We're here on X festival tour, and Sixteen Cities are playing, and oh look over there another band!" is third-party, covers the subject matter and is reliable, but it doesn't cover the subject matter in the detail needed to be considered under WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking Google News archives, and searching in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, I was unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - kudos to the nominator for the work put in before making the nomination. There just isnt enough here to establish notability.  That may very well change in the future, and an article at that point would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2009 (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.