Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Working Title


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Working Title

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BAND. No sourcing found, no reviews of albums anywhere, just placeholder album listings and lyrics databases. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking very borderline from what I found. The band were signed to Universal for one album, and I found an Allmusic bio and a couple of reviews, and some local coverage  - if someone can find more then I'd be happy to keep. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Add to Michig's sources a PopMatters review, a short review from Melodic.net , a review from a Decatur, IL newspaper that's behind a paywall (but searching for the terms "The Working Title" and "About Face" reveals some content) , and the Alternative Press review mentioned in the lede of the current article (that's a paper magazine which hasn't digitized its holdings from as far back as 2003). Frustratingly, the album was reviewed by Absolute Punk, as the article also notes, but AP has deleted their entire history of news and reviews from before they switched to the name Chorus.FM. In any case, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the group acquired significant press attention in its heyday, passing WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed. Scrapes through on what has been found. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources need to be applied to the article and some clean-up would not hurt, but the subject still passes with sufficient coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , And these sources will add themselves magically, right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * what was the point of that remark? The fact of the matter is the subject has enough coverage to pass for notability. An article should not be deleted just because someone failed to check for sources and take time to place them in the article when they ultimately decided to nominate an article for deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I always make: everyone's willing to dig for sources, but no one's ever willing to actually put them in the fucking article. So then 5 years later it's still an unsourced pile of shit because everyone is expecting everyone else to do it. If you're not going to improve the article, then don't dig up the sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to improve the article, it is outside my usual realm of music, but I do not mind. I am clustered with other projects at the moment, but I will start working on it in my sandbox within the week. No reason to delete the article on your basis although I do partially agree with your point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (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.