Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work Drugs


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Work Drugs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The subject does not seem to meet WP:BAND. No songs in the charts, no gold recordings, no major label and you can count third party references on one hand. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I disagree with Fly by Night. This artist has charted on many significant blogging charts such as the HypeMachine and Elbo.ws. The artist has nearly 20,000 Facebook fans. In addition, has toured with many major label acts such as Two Door Cinema Club, Memoryhouse, Peter Bjorn and John, Battles, Parts and Labor, Maps and Atlases, and others. In addition, their label Bobby Cahn Records is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group. Many other bands that have done less than these guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please state how the subject qualifies for inclusion by meeting the criteria set out at WP:BAND. By listing all of the bands, you are trying to say that the subject is notible by association. This is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — notability is not inherited. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE:

'1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.'

'4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.'

I believe these following citations cover 1 and 4.

Guardian UK article

or Vancouver tour review

Seattle tour review

Headlining band for the [indie rock] portion of [The Roots] (aka [Jimmy Fallons] band) 4th of July Festival in Philadelphia 2011.

specific mention in the TDCC wiki because of relevance

NY Times

WXPN International Festival

[ http://www.theowlmag.com/album-reviews/tropic-of-capricorn-by-work-drugs/ ] Owl Magazine Album Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneal99 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

'2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'

Yahoo News Article

Last.FM Top Artists of the Year

Major Indie Label Secretly Canadian press release

'11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Album of the week for national NPR syndicate WXPN.org

more from wxpn

This should satisfy your concern.

A quick google search reveals that this bandis not only real, but seems to be thriving. A google news search reveals that this band was recently in the top 10 blogged about artists on the hypemachine.They played the roots fourth of july festival last year according to philly.com

They also toured with two door cinema club which is listed on their wikepedia page.

This band was also listed by Last.FM as one of the top 10 discoveries of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.4.237.202 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is the first edit made by this IP address in three years. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please state how the subject qualifies for inclusion by meeting the criteria set out at WP:BAND. The so-called "Google test" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. In addition, the argument that the subject is notible because they toured with someone famous is another one to avoid — notability canot be inherited. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with above. Currently working to update the info. Somebody didn't do a very good job setting this thing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneal99 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this !vote was made by a single purpose account. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that this vote was made by someone who is trying to contribute factual references to a new article. While I understand and respect the fact that you are a "super user", I don't appreciate the attempts at belittling and discrediting my post statistics, while I'm simply trying to contribute to this community. I understand that I am a new user, but what is truly the difference? I am an 20 year old college student and this is my first entry into Wikipedia. Does that alone discredit my information about this band or anything I post? Should my freedom of speech be threatened by someone who is clearly outside of their wheel house when it comes to indie rock music? Isn't that the point of Wikipedia. I know a bit more about indie rock and you know a bit more about math. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many half credible artists trying to create a Wikipedia entry for "fame and glory," but I truly felt this was an artist that deserved to be on here based on the facts of the case. I feel that several of the articles fully satisfy the criteria set out at WP:BAND and thus it should be up for the voting public to decide. Respectfully, Jay. — Jay Neal  —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed your signature here. Your link includes a capital N which does not exist in your username. Please fix your signature as soon as possible, as it currently does not link to you as a user. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete Work Drugs is a well-known band and it makes amazing music. It needs to have a Wiki page and some of us fans are helping them out by making sure the citations are good and the research is well done. I really hope it is allowed to stay! Tejal Johri  (  talk  ) 09:05 PM, 17 July 2012
 * Delete My understanding is that "national music chart" would not be for an online music service, nor would a chart of most blogged bands. Facebook fans don't help establish notability. The coverage in all but the Guardian seems to be trivial, failing WP:GNG. Jayneal99, The article is not being judged on the newness of your account, nor has any attempt been made to belittle or discredit you or your statistics. The WP:SPA notice is a standard thing. No one is trying to threaten your freedom of speech. There is concern since individuals occasionally create accounts to push exactly one viewpoint (justified here by the last commenter claiming to be a fan). It is not meant to offend. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Not sure what "The Oyster" is, but on the possibility that it may be a RS, that would satisfy GNG. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This band meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG, per coverage in The Guardian and The Oyster Magazine. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Criterion 1 asks for "multiple&hellip;published works". The Guardian and The Oyster are two published works. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when is two not multiple? Jayneal99  —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the dictionary: multiple is a synonymy for several/many. This is the way the policy is meant to be interpreted. If two sources were acceptable then it would say "At least two&hellip;". — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did. "Having or involving more than one part, individual, etc: he had multiple injuries"  I'm sorry, but your argument fails under its own weight there.  Note also that GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as stated above this band meets 4 of Wikipedia's criteria --Gart99 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "In August of 2011, the song "Rad Racer" was featured in the Urban Outfitters commerical for "Favorite Fall Jeans of 2011"... That has to count for something too,
 * also one could argue that "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"--Gart99 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please verify these, so far unsubstantiated claims, by citing reliable sources, and stating explicitly which criteria they apply to? I will be happy to withdraw this nomination is someone can supply reliable evidence that this group satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. So far, all-but-one post on this discussion has been from a fan of the band, or a last.fm user. I have nothing against this group. I do, however, have something about diluting the integrity of Wikipedia. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not out to defend WP:MUSICBIO at the moment, but I can cover WP:GNG, which should suffice. Please see my response to you above concerning the definition of multiple.  I can also confirm in my experience with AfC and AfD that WP:GNG is interpreted (at least by some) to mean not less than two independent, reliable sources.  Technically, per WP:WHYN, "We require the existence of at least one secondary source," note that it does not say two.  Of course, that is likely not enough to satisfy GNG, but I feel it important to point out.  For GNG, though, the Guardian is a reliable source and has in-depth coverage.  Knowing nothing of it, I cannot personally vouch for the Oyster. Unless you are calling it into question, though, you would logically agree to a second, as it is also in-depth.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_(magazine) if this isn't a reliable source, why does it have a wikipedia page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we just established the credibility of The Guardian and Oyster Magazines.--Gart99 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Facebook has a Wikipedia page, but it is patently not reliable as a source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Weak) Keep, maybe borderline notability, but seems to pass WP:BAND#10 and, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (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.