Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cuban Heels


 * 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. NawlinWiki 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cuban Heels

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally listed for speedy deletion, but there is a claim of notability so I PROD'd but this was de-PROD'd by an IP. The claims of notability here are a few festival appearances and a song that debuted at #72 on the UK singles chart which to me is a rather weak claim per WP:MUSIC. I'll leave it up to the community to decide though. Isotope23 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should pass by WP:MUSIC criterion 2, although is #72 a "hit"?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is the reasoning I was following, charting #72 on a singles chart would not constitute a "hit" to me. I don't claim any sort of intimate knowledge of the UK music charting system, but in the U.S. anything below "40" can't really be considered overly important or popular.  Perhaps others will feel differently, but personally that falls short of the intent of WP:MUSIC criteria #2 in my book.--Isotope23 15:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly in the UK only the Top 40 is reported outside specialist industry publications..... ChrisTheDude 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The link to the band website given in the article is broken, which makes it impossible to determine if they pass any other notability requirements (e.g. press coverage; google doesn't help as there are at least two other bands with the same name). Furthermore the biography is written in a thoroughly unencyclopedic / anecdotal fashion ("Their tragic ending on 7th July 2006 is as rock and roll as there could ever be but here is not the place for it and now is not the time.") It's possible they're notable enough to merit an article, but in any case this isn't the article. --Javits2000 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an unusual case. It passes the letter of WP:MUSIC (even if only just), but IMHO it doesn't pass the spirit.  The UK is one of the world's major music markets, but just blipping on the charts doesn't necessarily equal popularity, fame, notability, or even big sales.  It's not unusual for a song to reach number one with sales of about 30,000 (example: McFly's "Baby's Coming Back" a couple months ago), generally anything outside the top 10 is considered a disappointment for major artists, and #72 is pretty much a disaster, representing a very small number of sales, exactly how small depending on the week.  To sum up, good try, but not-quite-notable enough.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:55, 8 July 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.