Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus Andronicus (band)


 * 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. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus (band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable band. If having gotten an album review is some claim to have met WP:BAND, then we might just as well scrap WP:BAND. This article has been listed for speedy deletion and for PROD, and has deletion has been rejected. See the article's Talk page. This is not a notable band, and just claiming that their album has been reviewed doesn't explain how they meet notability requirements. And album reviews do not provide the sort of information that an article about a band can be created, in general. Corvus cornix talk  17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete per WP:MUSIC. One review doesn't cut it.  Suggest also deleting The Airing of Grievances (album). Keep per additional sources provided by Chubbles.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete I declined the speedy, sent it to prod but don't think it meets WP:BAND, with the sources cited by Chubbles the coverage looks like enough to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Predictably, the band, which is signed to Troubleman Unlimited, has an Allmusic entry, and has gotten plenty of media attention aside from the Pitchfork Media acclaim. Note that some of that attention is international (Canadian and Australian press; the Canadian site is Exclaim!). Album reviews are independent third-party press about a band and are legitimate for establishing a band through point 1 of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chubbles. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per previous affirmative comments (notability, although marginal, is confirmed). And, damn, what a great name for a band! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the article meets the first notability criterion of WP:BAND. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll admit, they don't sound hugely notable, but the media coverage gives it enough for a Wikipedia article. Rock on! Rdbrewster  ♪  ♫  ♪  19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Chubbles, multiple sources exist for this band to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because they rock- I mean, um, because they're a notable band that's received positive reviews from many sources, released on a well-known indie label with wide international distribution. But really, I started the article because they rock. Thanks for the support, and the article updates, everyone. Kingcobweb (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps this should be SNOWed as "keep." It seems clear that some initial sourcing problems have been cleared up. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (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.