Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells


 * 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. There is no consensus for deletion per WP:GNG or for retention per WP:BAND; neither argument came on top here. MuZemike 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shells

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I see no indication that they meet the requirements in WP:BAND. They've been nominated for one little award (so little that the article about that award wasn't even created until less than two weeks ago) so this certainly doesn't count as a "major music award" or "major music competition" as described in the requirement linked above. As for substantial coverage in independent sources, all I see is three sentences in Seventeen and someone's blog. No album released yet, no charting singles, no nothing. And for a band that's supposed to be the WP:up and coming next big thing (which is not an appropriate reason for an article anyway), not that many people are looking them up on Wikipedia (pageview stats). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

- -
 * NOTE: relisted while a sockpuppetry case involving possible vote fraud is ongoing - Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. Thanks, Black Kite 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that User:VMAsNYC has been blocked indefinitely as a result of this case, as have several other related users. NW ( Talk ) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no charting albums (actually, that unreleased album should be up for AFD too), non-notable label (which was recently speedied), nominated for a minor award that they might not even win ( we'll see tonight ). No prejudice against recreation if they do explode onto the charts overnight...or something like that. As of now, they fail WP:BAND for the reasons described above. talking  birds  16:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about the album, I forgot to mention that in the nom statement. To the closing admin: if this article is deleted, Written Roads should be deleted along with it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking comment They lost the award, so I'm definitely going delete. If they would have won this minor award, I would have been a little more lenient on the deletedeletedelete argument. But simply being nominated for a small award that will probably not be introduced again next year & was not presented on-air is not enough justification to pass WP:BAND. talking  birds  21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. Maybe next month, we'll have more to talk about. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. All part of the rich tapestry.  HWV258  07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to address any of the policy issues raised above, or do you just like the article? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "All part of the rich tapestry"? What? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This band article clearly satisfies WP:BAND, and therefore should be kept.

The guidance's test for band notablity is that it meet any 1 of 12 criteria. Here, as is discussed below, the band meets 3 of the criteria. Three times what it must meet to qualify.

1. Subject of Multiple Non-trivial Independent Reliable Public Works.  One criterion that it has met is #1, in that it has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the [band] itself and reliable."

Specifically, among others, as the article itself reflects, (a) Seventeen Magazine (in their article last month: " "Band Spotlight: The Shells"), and (b) Queens Chronicle (in their article just this month) have published reviews on the band and its work.

The review of the band by Seventeen Magazine (which has a circulation of 22 million, 65 years in circulation, is the #1 magazine subscribed to by college freshmen, and has the 39th-highest circulation in the US)  is wholly consistent with Seventeen Magazine''s band review format. In part, the review states:

Band Spotlight: The Shells

Album: Written Roads (coming out October 8!)

Myspace: myspace.com/bombshelltrio

The vibe: Indie folk-rock mixed with a little R&B. Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls.

Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!

Our fave songs: Give a Little Take a Little, Wrong from the Start

Furthermore, the proposing deleter's statement above that the Seventeen article is only three sentences long is an innaccurate and misleading exageration, as can be seen by inspecting the review. Not that it matters--it is the magazine's format of choice, and it is appears to work for Seventeen inasmuch as the magazine is the largest-selling magazine to US college freshman. Importantly, it also meets the criteria of the guidance, as the guidance indicates that what is meant by "trivial" are those articles that do not do more than “simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.” This article clearly does much more than that, providing the reviewer's actual reviews and opinion of the band and the band's CD.

The review by Queens Chronicle this month (a newspaper which has been reporting for 30 years and now reaches 400,000 readers) says inter alia that:

"The Shells, one of the hottest rock groups around, are one of three finalists vying for the MTV Best Breakout NYC Artist Award. The trio consists of singers Jessica Waltz, Melanie Klaja and Carrie Welling, who lives in Astoria. Along with a set of backup musicians, they frequently play shows in western Queens and elsewhere in the city.... [T]he MTV competition [is] set for Sept. 11 at the Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza in downtown Manhattan....

These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, “Written Roads,” next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV. The award be presented during the network’s Video Music Awards, set for Sept. 13 at Radio City Music Hall.

This article also meets the guidance's standards, and is clearly non-trivial. These two reviews together are sufficient to satisfy the guidance's first criterion.

(They are addition to various established music industry blogs. Blogs, of course, are a not uncommon venue for written reviews of indie bands.  The reviews themselves, as well as the fact that the band was reviewed, arguably also reflect the notability of the band – they are highly positive reviews, as distinct from mentions along the lines of “nothing special; much like any other band".)

2. Nominated for Major Music Award.  A second criterion that this article meets is #8, in that the band has been "nominated for a major music award."

The MTV Video Music Awards are clearly major music awards. (Despite the proposing deleter’s anti-peacock characterization of the VMA as a “little” award. Furthermore, while he notes that it is “one” award, that is of course the requisite number under this guidance).

The band was nominated for the "MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award", as you can clearly see from the official rules.

As you can see here, the attaches to official releases regarding this award, clearly calling it the MTV VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Award.

Other official communications refer to the award as a VMA as well, and the award was given out at the official MTV VMAs ceremony.

The award appears to be a new VMA, and information with regard to the VMA (and, hence the Wikipedia article on it) have naturally only appeared recently. But that of course doesn't warrant exclusion (as the proposing deleter appears to suggest, when he seeks to create a standard that does not appear in the guidance of “when was a Wikipedia article created on it?)-- any more than a new Grammy or Oscar would warrant exclusion. And the VMAs have a long history of introducing new awards and pulling old awards).

3. Won or Placed in a Major Music Competition.  A third criterion that this article meets is #9, in that the band has "won or placed in a major music competition." The competion for the above award was a major one, in that it was an MTV competition (MTV being a major name in the music field), the competition at the outset involved 190 bands, the competition between the final three nominee bands was held at a major venue (The Fillmore at Irving Plaza; a major 1,100-person NYC venue).

As to the editor who suggested he would have voted for inclusion had they won, but will not as they only came in the top 3 (out of 190), I would point out that that his analysis is at odds with the guidance. The guidance treats all nominees -- whether they win or place -- as being notable. Thus, if you believe that the winner would be notable, the top 3 nominee shoudl be treated as notable as well.

 Irrelevant discussion. The proposing deleter focuses on the number of pageviews of this new article. First, that’s simply not a test under the guidance. Second, the number of pageviews of this article are far more per day than the number of pageviews of, say, the article on "The Shells (doo wop band)" from which this band is disambiguated. And – someone may know how to determine the number – from what I can see far more than a substantial number and proportion of Wikipedia articles. Also completely irrelevant is the proposing deleter’s discussion of what criteria the band does not meet. As indicated earlier – all that is asked for is that the band meet 1 criterion (if it only meets 1, of course it will not meet the other 11 – no need to discuss them).

Aside. As an aside, it is more than slightly troubling that this entire discussion came about as follows: (a) I indicated to one editor that on Sept. 8 that I had a difference of opinion with him on a separate issue (see ; (b) while he and I had never edited the same article before, suddenly I found him wikistalking me and making 100s of reversions to my entries, with special attention to those articles I created (see  -- when I reported the incident, it was closed out as "no violation", though there were suggestions that I could follow up my wikistalking complaing elsewhere and that wikistalking was innapropriate behavior); which was followed by (c) him appealing to another editor (see  – who (d) then proposed deletion here (as well as at another of related pages that I started -- something the initial editor didn't even do). My wikistalker has suggested that my charge is untrue -- but I am confident that if anyone checks his many edits in the days after he and I first communicated, that will see clearly that the vast majority of his hundreds of edits were to undo my edits on various pages I had touched that he had followed me to, as previously indicated. I'm at a loss. I'm just trying to be a helpful contributing editor, but I've apparently crossed the wrong editor who has made it his life's work this week to undo my (hopefully helpful) edits, and the baton has now been passed to an equally enthusiastic second editor.

In summary, this band clearly meets the WP:BAND criteria. Three times over. While I understand that the goal of standards is to not have non-notable garage cover bands whose best claim to fame is that they placed at a local church “best band of the church” competition, or had a write-up in a school newpaper as to when they were next playing, or whose best award experience was placing for the “best band on our block” award, this band is clearly far above those criteria. Allowing this article to remain is in accord with Wikipedia’s main policy of being comprehensive.

I'll leave friendly notices at a limited number of spots for editors who may have reason to have interest in following or joining this discussion. Thanks.

References

--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Way too long. But in response to your comments: 1) No, the band has not been a subject of substantial coverage. What you claim is "part of" the Seventeen review is actually the entire review&mdash;they say almost nothing, not substantial in the least. 2&3) The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in, they didn't win it, and it was not major (it's so minor it's not even listed anywhere on the VMA's website, and the article about it is up for deletion). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness. CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rjanag makes some misleading misstatements above. Again: 1) as indicated above the article meets the precise requirements of criterion 1 (not some new characterization introduced by Rjanag above); 2) the Seventeen review clearly exceeds the non-trivial test as stated in criterion 1 of [WP:BAND] and quoted above; 3) the criterion is not as Rjanag incorrectly suggests it that the band win the award, but that it win or place, which is what the band did out of the 190 bands in the competition; 4) Rjanag's suggestion that The Shells were not involved in the MTV VMA Best Breakout NYC Band competition is quite simply patently false, as demonstrated by the above citations; 5) MTV VMAs are clearly major; and 6) the article on this VMA being up for deletion is the work of the proposing deleter here, and should fail for the same reasons as here.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep “Lack of notability” better applies to things like some recent fiasco where this Australian business consultant paid a Wikipedian admin to write a Wikipedia article about him. The guy was just one of these guys who preaches “OK, fall back into the arms of your associates and trust them to catch you. Do you feel the ‘magic’?” So it was deleted. And rightfully so. This article is about a band that was an MTV finalist. It is obviously notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia with articles. Put it into perspective; our The Simpsons article (an American animation featuring toilet humor) has over 200 references and we’ve also got a separate article devoted to covering every single episode (List of The Simpsons episodes). Moreover, every single episode has its own Wikipedia article! So, of course, an article on a rock band that was featured on MTV is notable enough. I suspect the origins of this MfD AfD is nothing more than shrapnel from some pissing contest between editors who have gone to blows. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Simpsons are notable as described in the article, this band is not. Also, this is an AfD, not an MfD, and I have no idea what "pissing contest" you're talking about&mdash;perhaps you should actually look into the histories before making vague accusations with no basis. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: The Simpsons are notable as described in the article, this band is not. Gee, you didn’t even use the qualifier “IMHO”. I do note that your interest in this article seems to have started four days ago over cover art and non-free content and the exchange there makes for interesting reading (“the “f-word” being used once by an editor who weighed in on that thread). It appears, in my humble opinion, that this is much to do about ruffled feathers and edit disagreements. You have your reasons for doing what you do. You and I appear to share precious little common ground on this issue, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what relevance the NFCR thread you linked to has; I was not involved in that discussion, I only stepped in to stop a shouting match that has started. My "interest" in the article, if you can call it that, started because after intervening there I noticed how terrible this article was. But you are right that I have "reasons for doing what I do"&mdash;one of those reasons is keeping junk out of the encyclopedia. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is basically promotional. The links supplied as references either lack somwewhat (read completely) in independence of the subject (or of MTV, the promoters). Otherwise, the references are TRIVIAL mentions, directory listing of the nominees, or fail WP:RS - especially in relation to the blogs and press releases. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I recognize that you and the proposing deleter here and you have a strong working relationship, but that aside I believe your comments here are simply incorrect. There is no indication whatsoever of lack of independence.  The references clearly exceed the "trivia" test set by the guidance, as is evidence by the above quotes.  30-year old magazines with 400,000 to 22 million in circulation are not reliable sources?  I think that's stretching it just a bit.  As detailed above, this band article meets 3 of the criteria for "keep", when only meeting 1 criterion is what's called for.  And your deletion just now at  of pertinent sourced material from the very article that is being considered for deletion here (and which you are commenting upon) strikes me as decidedly innapropriate.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick response that our "strong working relationship" happens to be cooperation over one article over a period of about two months. I am a significant contributor to a fairly large number of articles, and as such, I cooperate with a fairly large number of editors. As for my deletion of "pertinent sourced material", from the point of view of WP:COPY and WP:RS, those were as good as unsourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know whether this group squeaks past the notability guidelines or not, but the article is clearly written to be promotional. It includes biographical material (sang from a young age! double major in college!) which is inappropriate for an outfit of this little renown, it makes a big deal out of a minor, largely unheard-of award nomination (not to mention creating an already-deleted article for the record company), and it quotes obscure sources (and an obscure page at a known source) at excessive length.  References to The Shells or their members have been dropped into many other articles.  User:VMAsNYC has done a much more industrious and polished job than the usual promotional editor, but in the end it's still promotional. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This effort at deletion waste of time appears to me to be fueled by personality clash. The band was nominated for a MTV Video Music Award.. That's a major music award meeting the requirement under WP:Band. Also, its multiple reviews in two widely circulated decades old magazines meets the multiple articles requirement, and the top-3 nomination to a 190-competitors MTV competition satisfies the "major music competition nomination" criteria. Looking at the history mentioned in the aside, and the exaggerations here by Rjanang, I must say that the motive behind the nomination by Rjanag is especially dubious--I'm swayed by Greg L in this regard. Finally, people should stick to whether it meets the standards of WP:Band (which it does), there are lots of all over the place. discussion and characterization tha're not tracking the standards at all.Haltzman (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Haltzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep the subject meets WP:MUSIC, notwithstanding the decidedly overeager adding of this group's name to virtually every page even remotely related to them or their style of music. The MTV coverage and media attention are sufficient to demonstrate the group's importance. There are problems with promotional tone, but this is not the proper theater for dealing with that. I recommend moving this page to The Shells (folk band), as The Shells (doo wop band) was inappropriately bounced out of the "The Shells" spot for this article, but I suppose this isn't the proper theater for dealing with that, either. Chubbles (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment. I have no interest in this group or AfD one way or the other (came here because a possibly dubious link to The Shells got dropped into the Dixie Chicks article) and have never run across any of these editors before. However I notice some weird patterns going on here. Best Breakout New York City Artist Award was created on August 31 by User:Epeefleche. The same day, User:VMAsNYC comes into being and makes his or her first edits. The next day, September 1, VMAsNYC creates The Shells article and takes over editing of Best Breakout New York City Artist Award. Despite being a supposedly new editor, VMAsNYC seems very knowledgable, such as creating a full set of talk page headers on his or her second day of editing. Now we get to this AfD, and out of the blue User:Haltzman shows up, who has only made five edits ever, three today including this and two in 2007 on the Scott Haltzman article. That article is highly promotional in nature as well, and its creator and primary editor has been ... User:Epeefleche again. There's at least a possibility here that Epeefleche, VMAsNYC, and Haltzman are all one and the same or related in some way. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete NN subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per the lengthy post above, the band has met the lowest rung of the notability ladder. I agree that the bio in the last section is unencyclopedic and uses an unreliable source. Therefor, I will delete this section. The rest of the article is also too full of flattery; the positive reviews are unnecessary and they should be deleted as well. The only material we really need in this article are the notable facts. A stub is all that is required.  CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than parroting the TL;DR post above that misinterprets policy, I would appreciate it if you could state in your own words how you feel the band "has met the lowest rung of the notability ladder". Specifically, how the award it was nominated for and lost is "major", and how the blurb in Seventeen is "substantial coverage". <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it informative. The band "won or placed in a major competition". Done. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, like I said, what makes the award major? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no absolute objective criteria of "majorness". It's a judgement call. In my judgement, the VMAs are major. In yours they are not. We have no consensus on this. Therefor no consensus for deletion. Therefor keep. That's my view.
 * But, let me emphasize, the more important issue here is that the article has all the hallmarks of an act of self-promotion, something we can't allow. The appropriate action is to carefully monitor the content. AfD is not the right venue for solving this problem.  CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add, that among the objective criteria that militate in favor of this being viewed as a major competition are a) "who" is running the competition (MTV--the world's largest music tv station), b) the number of competitors (190), c) where the competition was held (the 1,100 person Fillmore at Irving Plaza), d) the judges of the competition (band member from Cobra Starship, Fefe Dobson, and MTV person), and that the award given the winnner of the competition is a VMA (a well-known major award). These objective criteria distinguish the competition from other competitions that are not major competitions.--VMAsNYC (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong keep well referenced article which needs some work still but no WP:DEADLINE. Nominator: WP:TEA, thanks. Ikip (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The only significant coverage appears to be in their local newspaper, and the award nomination, albeit minor, may nudge them up the notability ladder a tad, but being nominated as the best not yet famous band in New York (and not winning) is hardly convincing in itself. The article on their album should be deleted or userified until significant coverage exists, though that's a separate issue. The best approach would seem to be to userify the article(s) until notability is established, which seems a strong possibility, but isn't there yet.--Michig (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems well sourced, and award show seems to be significant (didnt MTV used to be a music video channel? i have this strange memory of watching music vids on it). at this time, content doesnt appear promotional, which is nice. I agree that a stub is all the band justifies at this point. I would tend toward not having a separate article for the album unless it charts, but considering release is just weeks away, may be silly to delete it. maybe a merge of content.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, MTV is a music video channel, but they weren't on it. They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV (it has MTV's name on it, but is actually a newly-created award sponsored by Time Warner in conjunction with MTV and barely publicized&mdash;publicized so little, in fact, that it's not listed anywhere on MTV's website and wasn't shown during the VMA awards except on very local television). And they didn't even win it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. That the article was created by a sock emphasizes how promotional it is.  If the group actually becomes successful, an article can always be created then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I initially recused myself from this discussion due to personal attacks from VMAsNYC, but now that "they" have been blocked I'll weigh in: Weak Keep after extreme trimming. Only the very bare minimum is needed on this band, but I do believe they are notable enough for an article. Placing in the top three in a competition with almost 200 bands from a major metropolitan area is a major accomplishment. The prize is non-trivial and despite not being aired on MTV, it was aired on MTV2 (according to the references). VMAsNYC et al was way too promotional in their efforts to create and link to this article, but that doesn't change the fact that the Shells (and MeTalkPretty and Red Directors for that matter) meet WP:BAND 8/9. Trim the WP:SPAM and remove the promotional links but there should be an article. The album should also be merged into the article (After further review of the article, aside from the track listing and the album cover, there is no additional information on the album page.  I'm going to boldly redirect since there is nothing of substance to merge.) and The Shells (disambiguation) should be moved back to The Shells.
 * Aside to Greg L: Stating "IMHO" isn't really necessary. By default we are all just expressing our opinion so there is no need to explicitly state that fact.
 * ~ Paul T +/C 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After further review, (see below) it seems that there were other local bands that won "Best Breakout Artist" and presumably the award was televised in place of the NYC artist in their local area on MTV2. The Band was never televised nationally, therefore I vote to Delete. ~ Paul T +/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep . As irritated as I am with the amount of my time that's been wasted by multiple editors who all turned out to be sockpuppets of each other here, ultimately I think this band just about scrapes over the notability threshold as Psantoro states above - it really all comes down to how major one considers the award. Heavy trimming of promotional fluff is indeed necessary, but I'm not sure deletion is quite warranted. ~ mazca  talk 22:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for an update on the award...its article was redirected (not deleted) to the main MTV article. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True. There's an element of notability suggested by the award, but given Rjanag's point that notability is pretty weak. In the absence of much in the way of substantial coverage elsewhere; I have to concur with delete here. Without the promotional aspect, this band is pretty obscure and insufficient reliable-source info is really available for a worthwhile article. ~ mazca  talk 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They were nominated for a major music video which is a VMA. Which allows them to have an article based on Wiki rules! Does not deserve a delete. They are MTV Award nominees. JFlash54 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not seeing significant independent coverage in the 4 references on the article. It is just PR stuff and a local competition, which they didn't win. If the competition had got them some significant coverage in regional media then that would make it a keep but I don't see references to that effect at the moment. I guess they could be notable once the album gets released if it gets non-trivial coverage (reviews etc) in independent media. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I removed a significant amount of the content in an effort to trim the article down as I outlined above. There were a handful more references, so you might want to take a look at the older versions before judging on the lack of references. ~ Paul T +/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unlike a real VMA this is not based on a released music video. It isn’t even the only pseudo-VMA of the year: According to http://www.ourstage.com/go/mtv it is one of 8 “Best Breakout < > Artist” contests. The VMA winners page doesn’t seem to have heard of any of them. —teb728 t c 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, WHAT? There were 7 other winners? WTF? I'm changing my vote and I think the redirect for the award is a mistake also. ~ Paul T +/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (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.