Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloppy Seconds


 * 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. --- Deville (Talk) 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Seconds
Rescued from speedy delete, but notability highly questionable. Yes they had four records, but Taang! Records appears to be a storefront operation, while Musical Tragedies/Toxic Shock has no Google presence at all. "[B]eing proud to be fat, drunk, and stupid" does not, even in these benighted times, guarantee stardom. I hope. If the closing admin determines that Western Civilization can survive without this article, note that their albums and EPs have articles too, and this is a multiple nomination including those articles also. Herostratus 06:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - undecided on this one as the group's name has another usage that makes Google pretty useless but in terms of the labels involved, Taang! released albums by The Lemonheads, Spacemen 3, The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and Mission Of Burma so to dismiss them as "a storefront operation" seems somewhat narrow. Musical Tragedies has a page at Discogs that shows them to have worked with a number of notable underground artists including Lee Ranaldo, The Damned (a live album) and The Hafler Trio as well as seemingly licencing some o/p punk sides. However, this group is not listed at Discogs for either imprint. Ac@osr 10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I did not know that about Taang! Records. Since the group had two records on Tanng!, it sounds like they may meet WP:MUSIC: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." I would note that we are not required to keep all groups that meet WP:MUSIC, rather we (more or less) required to delete all that don't, which is a different thing. However I don't remember ever seeing a group that did meet WP:MUSIC being deleted. Herostratus 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Taang! Records is quite established as a major label and Sloppy Seconds are one of their notable acts, easily passing WP:MUSIC. wikipediatrix 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and read WP:OSTRICH sometime. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, I moved this from from a Speedy delete. I don't usually move articles with a good-faith Speedy tag to no delete, out of respect for the original speedy nominator. Would you rather I had left the article alone where it would most likely have been deleted out of hand. Herostratus 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also still think it likely that the article should be deleted, BTW. This is not an AfD on Taang! records. Just because they hooked onto a label that also picked up some later-famous bands in their scufflin' days doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Yes they meet the minimum requirement where we are not honor-bound to delete them, but that does not require that they be kept. As the article points out, they were drunk and stupid, and it appears the the subjects of their lyrics were stupifying banal. Absent more information from someone familiar with the band, it seems likely that they were utterly uninfluential and forgettable. Herostratus 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like this band doesn't mean they don't belong. They meet WP:MUSIC, and that should be enough. They've had releases on Nitro Records, Bobby Steele played with them for a Misfits cover, they've toured nationally... if being stupid were criteria for being deleted from Wikipedia, we'd be out a whole lot of articles. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I actually have a problem with the position regarding the relationship of artist to label on Wiki. Anyone signing to a major label seems to get in on that basis alone whereas indie artists have to work much harder. Anyone on their own label seems to get canned straight away. To my mind, this is totally the wrong way around - a label can only be as notable as its artists (FWIW, I disagree with the remarks of Herostratus regarding the bands noted here being in their "scufflin' days" and thus not relevent - getting there first repeatedly is of remark - see Fierce Panda for an object lesson). Saying an artist is notable because they signed to a notable label is completely wrong as is the notion that an artist that is not signed to a large label cannot be of note. Anyway, having looked at this one a bit more closely, they seem to be an established touring act so it's a keep from me but well worth it for the interesting issue raised regarding transferrable notability. Ac@osr 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is shown... touring, notable record label releases... so how is it NOT notable? PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:43, 31 August 2006 (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.