Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curtis Mayflower


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The Curtis Mayflower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, nothing much past indiscriminate local puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep A review in No Depression certainly isn't local puff, and the group received a substantial piece in Worcester Today, far more than indiscriminate coverage of local listings. The Worcester Telegram also gave them serious, substantial coverage at . There's also this review, this interview, and this (not as good) interview. A little bit of coverage from the Boston Herald, too . There's enough coverage here to hurdle WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Band fails WP:GNG and have little to no secondary sources that discuss them with WP:INDEPTH.Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 05 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: The Telegram interview is a good cite from a reliable source. But that's it so far; website interviews and one paragraph pieces don't meet the GNG: 0+0+0+0 still = 0.  Show me at least one other piece (and preferably not from the Worcester media market) from a reliable source of the length of that Telegram interview and I'll consider it worth keeping.   Ravenswing   17:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No Depression is one of the most important magazines in folk and roots music - its name is itself a genre term synonymous with alternative country - and it granted Curtis Mayflower a full review. That's certainly one more. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage among these to establish notability:, , , , , . --Michig (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Just noting that I added the Telegram article to the piece as well as the Revue piece that Michig dug up, which is international press coverage. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Per request for fresh assessment with resisting: FWIW Chubbles, "Revue" website is international, I suppose, the way anything on the web is international, but it is unfortunately a weak source per their editorial policy of encouraging artists to submit promotional content. I'm kind of bothered that this band hasn't really accomplished much of significance. I'm also a bit troubled that there are not that many sources beyond regional coverage. Yet that is not a disqualifier, and some of the coverage displays independent, third party recognition. That, plus the aforementioned review in No Depression Magazine is enough to squeak it through wikipedia notability criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2017 (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.