Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Steele 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Steele Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned and almost entirely primary sourced article about a band, whose most substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is reaching #79 on a chart that doesn't satisfy WP:CHARTS (the magazine's Wikipedia article describes its chart as "focused on exposing new music played on secondary market radio stations", which means charting on it isn't noteworthy.) A band with no claim to passing NMUSIC #2-12 could still get an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy NMUSIC #1 (which is essentially "has enough media coverage to satisfy GNG"), but with the sourcing here being virtually all primary that hasn't happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know all the fancy wiki linking, but this is absurd. This is a real band, real people, and the bio isn't advetorially toned, it's just a plain description. Making the charts is a big deal, and per wiki's policy on WP:CHARTS there are countless band pages on wiki that have no charting or sources to prove charting. Did (talk) bother looking at the sources, which are all well established industry websites which show coverage. Additional media coverage will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article was advertorially toned; thank you for toning it down, but what it is now is not what it was at the time I wrote my nomination statement. Secondly, "real band, real people" is not, in and of itself, a reason why a band gets a Wikipedia article — we are not a free PR platform where everybody who exists at all is entitled to have an article just because they exist, but an encyclopedia where people qualify for an article if they satisfy certain standards of notability and sourceability. Thirdly, making "the charts" is not a big deal if the chart they made isn't one that qualifies as a notable chart per WP:CHARTS. (Frex, a band qualifies as notable because charting if they charted in Billboard; they do not qualify as notable because charting if the only charting claim they can make is on iTunes.) And fourthly, people do not get articles based on "well established industry sites" where the content is PR-oriented — they get articles based on reliable source coverage in real media, which exactly zero of the sources here are. Even "The Magazine of Country Music" source is actually a press release issued by the band to publicize itself, making it a self-published source. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please Do not delete this page. We are getting the CMT and GAC sources that his music has run on for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I added 2 nationally recognized sources to the article that show national play. This should satisfy #11 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only new sources present in the article since the last time I looked at it are both to a small local newspaper in Erie, Pennsylvania, and neither one says anything about radio airplay on a national radio network whatsoever. Those would be acceptable sources if the rest of the sourcing around them were better than it is, but the Erie Times-News is not widely distributed enough to carry WP:GNG all by itself if it's the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the band appears to exist, but does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at the moment. There are not enough reliable independent sources writing in significant depth about the band to establish notability. Google searches turn up promotional and/or self-published material. The point where reliable independent sources write articles on the band (not reprinting press releases) will be the time the band is ready for a Wikipedia article. Article currently attracts an average of three views a day, and that includes those involved in writing it.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:07, 21 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.