Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Flyer
- 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Western Flyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What it really gets down to is I want this page deleted so I can create an article on the historic ship SS Western Flyer without having to DAB it. That said, this article legitimately should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability for WP:BAND. The closest it comes to is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart,", however its one appearance (#36 in 1996) was on a genre chart which I don't believe is covered by the WP:BAND catchall criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Allmusic states that they have three separate singles that were popular enough to hit the charts: "She Should've Been Mine" and "Western Flyer" (from their first album) and "What Will You Do With M-E" (from their second album). The last of which even hit the 'Top 40'. As far as their other songs, it looks like their "Cherokee Highway" song got enough of a positive reception (even if it didn't chart in the U.S.) that Billboard commented on it due to the song's subject matter-- the group performed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday celebration in Atlanta as a result. All of this makes me think that they're notable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The MLK Birthday Celebration in Atlanta is a huge event at which dozens of, mostly local, bands perform during a 6-hour free concert in a park. This is not an event at which multi-platinum bands descend upon. It's a community festival composed almost exclusively of local gig bands, like any community festival or fair in a mid-major city. While it's a great event, I really don't think it's logical to assign it the status of an important milestone on the annual musical calendar that, once a band has played it, they have made it. Also, I'll again note, their chart-hitting songs were brief, low positions on genre charts. I'm under the impression a genre chart doesn't count for the WP:BAND "national chart" criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event (this reminds me of the "Same Love" single) got enough notice for Billboard to talk about them. Billboard is rather far from a mere local or community oriented newspaper. And it's not like they had no hits. They had three (two more than the many'one hit wonder' groups that have Wiki pages), one of which was a top 40 single that still gets airplay, and I fail to see how this group isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- "It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event ..." - so if my not-notable band writes a song that gets us invited to a not-notable music festival, we're now notable. Got it. LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- If a well-known band (with three hits, at least two more than your average country band) gets an invitation to a big musical festival based on a socio-political controversy such that the news is so important that Billboard reports on it, then that's worth noting. That's not a stretch at all. Once again, Billboard is not some cheap zine, for crying out loud, they're one of the most notable music related publications in the entire freaking country.
- If you had a country band that wrote a song about, say, how traditionalist Christianity among southerners has contributed to homophobic hate crimes and criticize the culture attitudes in the south in your country song as you sing in support of equality, and the likes of Billboard thought that the ensuing discussions was notable enough to mention, with Billboard reporting especially how the controversy has led civil rights minded groups to promote your band in a big music festival... yeah, if that happened now, I would consider it strong evidence towards your group having a Wiki page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- "It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event ..." - so if my not-notable band writes a song that gets us invited to a not-notable music festival, we're now notable. Got it. LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event (this reminds me of the "Same Love" single) got enough notice for Billboard to talk about them. Billboard is rather far from a mere local or community oriented newspaper. And it's not like they had no hits. They had three (two more than the many'one hit wonder' groups that have Wiki pages), one of which was a top 40 single that still gets airplay, and I fail to see how this group isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The MLK Birthday Celebration in Atlanta is a huge event at which dozens of, mostly local, bands perform during a 6-hour free concert in a park. This is not an event at which multi-platinum bands descend upon. It's a community festival composed almost exclusively of local gig bands, like any community festival or fair in a mid-major city. While it's a great event, I really don't think it's logical to assign it the status of an important milestone on the annual musical calendar that, once a band has played it, they have made it. Also, I'll again note, their chart-hitting songs were brief, low positions on genre charts. I'm under the impression a genre chart doesn't count for the WP:BAND "national chart" criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. Another example of newspaper coverage is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Their gig at a bar in Wichita was mentioned in the Lakeland Ledger?! Man, what was I thinking AfD'ing this. LavaBaron (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Very minor hits on a Billboard genre chart are not really convincing as a claim to notability, although they at least make the band borderline. There's a bit more minor coverage here. Neither of the two band members with articles have convincing independent notability. I think we need more evidence of coverage here, or at least something that gives us confidence that it exists. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I still think this is borderline based on what has been identified so far, but the likelihood is that further coverage exists, and I don't really see a benefit to the project from deleting this, so weak keep for me. --Michig (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:BAND with and two albums on a notable label, plus a Top 40 hit on Hot Country Songs. The sources from Lakeland Ledger, The Times-Leader, and Deseret News already in the article are clearly non-trivial, and additional coverage in Billboard here, here, here, here, here, and here, including reviews of three of their singles. MusicHound Country also has significant mention of the band here. I think this is clearly more than sufficient coverage to pass. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Per WP:OUTCOMES, Hot Country Songs is considered a major enough chart to pass WP:BAND; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Swindell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McGuinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Gault et al. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- A one-line CD listing in a CD catalog constitutes "significant mention?" LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: The Google Books excerpt seems to be longer than one line from what I can pick up in Google Books. Also, did you miss all the Billboard references above? Reviews of three singles certainly convey a non-trivial degree of notability. And again, you have yet to comment on the Deseret News article or any of the other articles already cited. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- While those are nice, they don't meet WP:BAND criteria. There's a lot of chaffe being fired into the air and I don't have time to comment on all of it (e.g. the note in the Lakeland Ledger that the band was playing a bar gig in Wichita one evening in 1987 as "massive coverage"), which is why some of my replies may be absent a point-by-point rebuttal. Most of this doesn't pass the smell test on its own, it doesn't require my dissection or WP:LASTWORD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You don't think "Charted single in the top 40 of a major chart" or "two albums on a notable label" = WP:BAND? You don't think that reviews in Billboard, one of the most definitive music magazines ever, is WP:BAND? Tell me how reviews of singles are "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories", or "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases", the only things excluded by criterion #1. Tell me how #32 on Hot Country Songs and another single at #38 on RPM Country Tracks are somehow not good enough for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", especially when I pointed out above that Hot Country Songs has a precedent for being a sufficiently widespread national music chart. Tell me how two albums on Step One Records does not translate to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." I sure see a lot more blue links than red on Step One's list of artists, meaning that they meet the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" criterion. For the record, this is what the MusicHound book says: "…the band stakes out some solid country-rock turf with the title tune and the cautionary tale of racism, 'Cherokee Highway.' However, not all the songwriting is as substantive. Their second album… lapses into bland balladeering, with an occasional stab at Springsteen-style roots-rock. Trouble is they sound more like a Chevy ad than they do the Boss." That sounds like a review to me, and reviews are most certainly fine for "non-trivial coverage". Further significant coverage: here, here. New Country magazine often reviewed obscure acts like this, so I'll check the late 1996 issues if I can get my hands on them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your treatise I already addressed (it was a genre chart). You typed a lot after that. To save time, I'm going to assume the rest of your questions are also repetition of what's already been addressed and stop there but, if not, let me know and I'll give it a skim. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, but I've shown you that there is precedent for this being a genre chart major enough to meet the criterion of WP:BAND. Can you show me any counterexamples where "just a genre chart" was not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as precedent. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: And you're not giving me any good reason why Hot Country Songs somehow does not pass muster, because it's "just a genre chart". Where has "just a genre chart" been a valid argument in the past? I've never seen anyone split hairs over which charts do and do not qualify for that criterion of WP:BAND like this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's nice. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: And you're not giving me any good reason why Hot Country Songs somehow does not pass muster, because it's "just a genre chart". Where has "just a genre chart" been a valid argument in the past? I've never seen anyone split hairs over which charts do and do not qualify for that criterion of WP:BAND like this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as precedent. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, but I've shown you that there is precedent for this being a genre chart major enough to meet the criterion of WP:BAND. Can you show me any counterexamples where "just a genre chart" was not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your treatise I already addressed (it was a genre chart). You typed a lot after that. To save time, I'm going to assume the rest of your questions are also repetition of what's already been addressed and stop there but, if not, let me know and I'll give it a skim. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You don't think "Charted single in the top 40 of a major chart" or "two albums on a notable label" = WP:BAND? You don't think that reviews in Billboard, one of the most definitive music magazines ever, is WP:BAND? Tell me how reviews of singles are "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories", or "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases", the only things excluded by criterion #1. Tell me how #32 on Hot Country Songs and another single at #38 on RPM Country Tracks are somehow not good enough for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", especially when I pointed out above that Hot Country Songs has a precedent for being a sufficiently widespread national music chart. Tell me how two albums on Step One Records does not translate to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." I sure see a lot more blue links than red on Step One's list of artists, meaning that they meet the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" criterion. For the record, this is what the MusicHound book says: "…the band stakes out some solid country-rock turf with the title tune and the cautionary tale of racism, 'Cherokee Highway.' However, not all the songwriting is as substantive. Their second album… lapses into bland balladeering, with an occasional stab at Springsteen-style roots-rock. Trouble is they sound more like a Chevy ad than they do the Boss." That sounds like a review to me, and reviews are most certainly fine for "non-trivial coverage". Further significant coverage: here, here. New Country magazine often reviewed obscure acts like this, so I'll check the late 1996 issues if I can get my hands on them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- While those are nice, they don't meet WP:BAND criteria. There's a lot of chaffe being fired into the air and I don't have time to comment on all of it (e.g. the note in the Lakeland Ledger that the band was playing a bar gig in Wichita one evening in 1987 as "massive coverage"), which is why some of my replies may be absent a point-by-point rebuttal. Most of this doesn't pass the smell test on its own, it doesn't require my dissection or WP:LASTWORD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: The Google Books excerpt seems to be longer than one line from what I can pick up in Google Books. Also, did you miss all the Billboard references above? Reviews of three singles certainly convey a non-trivial degree of notability. And again, you have yet to comment on the Deseret News article or any of the other articles already cited. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- A one-line CD listing in a CD catalog constitutes "significant mention?" LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (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.