Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code (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 keep. All comments agree that the subject satisfy at least one criteria of WP:BAND. Without any policy/guideline based arguments as to why the page should still be deleted, this defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The Code (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A former ska-rock band that fails WP:BAND. Standard and custom searches in Google News archives and Google Books are not providing coverage in reliable secondary sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  07:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  07:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's a review at Allmusic, and a staff review at Punknews.org. A bit thin to support an article, but if ayone can add to these we might have a case for keeping. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BAND point 5 - two or more albums on indie label A-F Records, which in itself is notable. Maybe you should read the policy you've cited for deletion before heading to AfD next time.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Lugnuts. I have read the WP:BAND guideline page. Therein it states "...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". I agree that this topic passes criteria #5 of WP:BAND, which qualifies the topic as possibly being notable, but this does not automatically confer notability, particularly due to the manner in which the word "may" is used on the guideline page regarding notability. The topic still appears to fail criteria #1 on the guideline page. From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered Allmusic.com as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability, while Punknews.com has been acceptable to some editors. So, right now there's one source that appears to be usable. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is a reliable source, despite some editors' ludicrous claims that it is 'a blog' (it isn't), 'covers everything' (it doesn't, and even if it did that wouldn't make it unreliable), and that the bios and reviews are 'written by the bands' (they aren't). --Michig (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  14:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  Fails all but item 5 of WP:BAND.  It seems clear that the verbiage "may" intends editors to use judgement in applying the guideline.  As for Allmusic.com, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers (Allmusic.com submissions).  Meanwhile the punknews.org review called the band a "speck of dust" that "perhaps" will become notable. Richigi (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Allmusic will add all releases to its database as stated in that link - a pretty sensible policy if you're building up a database of releases. That has no bearing on the reliability of what their writers write, and it's equally clear from that link that bios and reviews are from their own writers. It is a reliable source, and per WP:GNG, if we have enough coverage in reliable sources, a subject is considered notable. The punknews review does not say what you state it says, it describes the band as "one of the most exciting ska-punk acts in the scene today" and doesn't use the word 'notable' once. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically unknown band. It only passes one item in WP:BAND, not enough when it's all said and done to have a wiki article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's also an article on the band from the Pittsburgh City Paper accesible via HighBeam . --Michig (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviews from Allmusic & punknews.org, plus 2 releases on A-F Records - that just scrapes the bar at WP:BAND, as far as I'm concerned. — sparklism  hey! 11:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though barely, I think the links above are enough for notability. There's another staff review from punknews here — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I've been mulling over whether to go for this or "weak delete" but I think there's just enough there to satisfy the criteria. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG - the AllMusic guide is the only reliable and independent source that's been found so far. But, having two albums released on a significant independent label are enough to meet WP:BAND. The source to A-F is a dead link, but fortunately I have found an alternative source on Amazon which verifies this fact. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:11, 27 November 2012 (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.