Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cunninghams (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Cunninghams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is mostly the work of a member of the band described and sourced entirely to their personal knowledge. Article has been tagged for 12 years with no substantial improvement for WP:OR, WP:COI, and notability. WP:BEFORE finds only a AllMusic band bio and an old Deseret News article that meet the significant/independent/reliable test. The previous AfD claimed multiple RS but on inspection, none of those would be well-received as RS today. Two RS makes GNG notability very borderline and I find no evidence that any of the criteria under WP:BAND apply. The possibility of mergers or redirects is limited as the most likely targets already redirect to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Which sources did you object to? The album article was redirected earlier this year; the band and/or album are covered by AllMusic, Trouser Press, Tulsa World, Washington City Paper, Musician, Arizona Republic, Billboard, Deseret News. If COI is a problem, just have an album article... Caro7200 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Tulsa World article is a bundle CD review that spends all of four sentences actually talking about the band in question or its music. The Billboard "article" is nothing more than a picture caption that doubles as a signing announcement.  The Trouser Press article is another capsule review. the Washington City Paper is just an gig announcement. Please identify (or, better yet, link to) the Musician and Arizona Republic articles.  The problem all these have is that they are not WP:SIGCOV.  Even taken together, they demonstrate existence and little else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of album reviews are "capsule" reviews...perhaps your real objection is to the existence of short articles? The previous AfD closed as no consensus, but with a suggestion that the article be rewritten...all of the above sources can be used to craft a short article. Caro7200 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to tell me what my "real" objection is when I've explicitly spelled it out with references and links to policy. With the sole exception of the Deseret News article, all the sources available are very short and do not demonstrate significant coverage.  There is no reason to continue to carry an article, of whatever length, that basically says: "This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album."  Hundreds of other bands could say the same or similar but neither they nor this one have had any real impact. Notability exists as a standard for a reason.   Also a correction: the previous AfD closed with the statement that there was a very clear consensus that the article need a rewrite at a minimum.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another correction: I posed a question, I did not try to tell you anything. And these sources could very much be used to construct an article that says something beyond "'This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album.'" A band or an album is notable if enough coverage exists in independent, reliable sources. Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep there are five reliable sources covering this band in at least a paragraph and combined that passes WP:GNG. Also the nominator seems to imply that the first AFD was years ago when it was in fact only last March. There is no valid reason at all to delete this article,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. This article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hardly unsalvageable considering it is one paragraph long and there are five reliable sources giving it at least a paragraph each, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. One scant paragraph here and there hardly constitutes enough "in-depth" sources for the purpose of claiming notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage lacks substance. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 15 October 2020 (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.