Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Write This Down (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   userfy to User:Djc wi/Write This Down (band). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Write This Down (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Subject does not meet notability guidelines presented at WP:BAND. Released one studio album on a notable indie label. Did not chart. Much discussion on the talk page regarding the possibility that the band's music has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Meeting this criteria would indicate that the subject meets #11 of the WP:BAND guidelines. However, rotation is limited to RadioU and ChristianRock.Net, neither of which are considered national major radio networks. In addition to the failure to meet WP:BAND, the article has not established notability through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.  Cind. amuse  02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The band has two EPs.The second EP was listed as an album by their label. One review spends more time lamenting this choice from the label than they do reviewing the album. The label is an imprint of EMI Christian music, so not indie per se. The band clearly does not meet WP:BAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now, I ain't about to be spilling my age for nothing. That said, well over a hundred years ago, I used to book indie bands through T&N for various conferences. They were the go-to indies when they first started out. EMI owns 50 percent of the label. To this day, T&N continue to define themselves as an indie label.  Cind.  amuse  01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In a real network each station plays local content, has options on some national content, and has requirements for other national content. I'm thinking of NBC Red Network or CBC Radio. And according to radio network "The Broadcast type of radio network is a network system which distributes programming to multiple stations simultaneously". This is only one other licensed station. The others are repeaters. In fact KRQZ is just a glorified repeater. RadioU is a great radio station, WUFM, and I have listened to it since 1997, but it's not a network since it's one station in Columbus with multiple low-power repeaters around the country. Now, being owned by the same company doesn't make it a network either because KWPZ and KCMS are owned by the same company and they don't share any resources. They're two separate stations. So I can't see how RadioU is a traditional network and as such should not qualify toward the criteria listed in WP:BAND. If that's the case, there are a lot of indie bands who need to be added because they make the daily RadioU Most Wanted list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, Write This Down (EP) and Write This Down (album) are two separate projects. The EP was released independently and the album was released by Tooth & Nail Records.  ChristianRock.Net may not be a network, but RadioU is.  They broadcast from two parent stations in Ohio and California.  It is this fact that distinguishes RadioU from local radio stations since local stations only broadcast from one parent station.  Write This Down (band) meets Criterion 11.  --Djc wi (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. Respectfully, neither RadioU or ChristianRock.Net qualify.  Cind. amuse  17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've explained how RadioU is a network.  Please explain how RadioU isn't a network.  --Djc wi (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Two stations isn't a network. It's two stations, one of which is KRQZ, which has no entity of its own, so it's essentially a repeater of the first station. See http://www.radio-locator.com/info/KRQZ-FM Where is KRQZ's home page? Who are KRQZ's on-air personalities? Who is the station manager at KRQZ?
 * Comment. In response to Djc wi above. Network? Not a network? I don't know and haven't made a statement either way. However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the two radio broadcast entities are networks. That said, the topical notability criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. This is where the rotation airplay falls short. In spite of all this, we still have a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not negate the requirement for significant, reliable, and independent coverage.  Cind. amuse  01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have already commented above on the two "projects" as you called them. The first is an EP and doesn't qualify toward the criteria as listed in WP:BAND. The second "project" does. I have corrected my comment above to reflect that fact. One album and one EP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, and thank you for your correction. And just to clarify, I never mentioned being owned by the same company as a criterion for being considered a network or not.  It is simply because RadioU is being broadcasted by more than one parent station in different coverage areas across the United States.  --Djc wi (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article also meets Criterion 12.  Has been subject of hour-long broadcast over national TV network.  --Djc wi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is the link to the proof of Criterion 12.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6cVJAA1FQw TVU's Most Wanted is an hour-long broadcast on TVU, aired on KTV, a national network.  --Djc wi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked out the link, but rather than appearing for an hour-long interview or broadcast of which they were the subject, the interview is just under ten minutes long. Are the other 50 minutes somewhere else? Sorry, I couldn't find the content that would fulfill the topic notability criteria.  Cind. amuse  08:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The video is of an hour broadcast.  TVU's Most Wanted plays music videos and internal promotions in the other 50 minutes.  The video just cut out everything else.  Since other music videos and promotions take up the other part of the show, that would make Write This Down the subject of the show.  For proof of "the other 50 minutes," TVU's most wanted airs on Friday at 4, 7, and 10 PM ET & PT.  You can see that the subject of the show receives about 10 minutes of airtime and the other 50 minutes is videos and promotions.  --Djc wi (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ten minutes of coverage does not equate to being the subject of an hour-long broadcast.  Cind. amuse  09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * KTV isn't a national TV network! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. KTV is a national network.  If it's not, then what is it?  --Djc wi (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What are the TV stations in the TV network? It's a music channel that broadcasts through the Internet, Sky Angel and KTV where it has a four-hour timeslot during the time when other network affiliated stations are running infomercials. It's owned by the same parent company as RadioU. It's a stretch to call it a network, and certainly not in the spirit of WP:BAND. Since you won't let this issue drop, would you mind giving full discloser of your relationship to the band and its record label? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The issue here is the two words Major and National. Neither the tv channel, or the radio stations meet this criteria. No denying they are networks, but the other two parts are the qualifiers. (Trust me, my own band got lots of student, local and pirate radio plays, but you will notice that Digital Fish is conspicuously a red link. What can I say, the media is populated by philistines! ;-)). While I do hope that this band achieves notability, and from what is being posted, it is clear they are heading in the correct direction, as yet, they do not justify a page. I would suggest that at present, this would be best suited to a dedicated website, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web hosting service. Bennydigital (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BAND, also agree with Bennydigital above. LK (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Do not meet WP:BAND as per Bennydigital. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Userify - It's obvious that this discussion has gone on too long, but the band is still active and will most likely be releasing a second album on Tooth & Nail Records in the future. Until then, the page should be maintained as a user page until the second album is released.  --Djc wi (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one can prevent you from adding the contents of the page to your user page or as a sub page of it, but it's not advised nor is it necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just curious, why isn't it advised or necessary? --Djc wi (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (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.