Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Band

non notable band - no hits on google, no significant releases Roger Blitzen (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. Mostly self-released albums with little media coverage. D0762 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability per WP:BAND. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two notable members (Richard Youngs and Neil Campbell), plus assertion of importance within improv scene by music magazine The Wire. Borderline yes, but just this side of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mention in an article in the wire doesn't fall under "multiple non-trivial published works". Also, just a comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but Totnesmartin, are you a member of the A Band? If this is the case, then perhaps Wikipedia:COI is relevant here?Roger Blitzen (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually Simon Wickham-Smith played with them as well and Phil Todd of Ashtray Navigations has played with the reformed edition...I created the article as it was the place where more than one known and significant figure in current experimental music was a regular participant (their LP on Siltbreeze features both) and it didn't belong as such in either Campbell or Youngs' piece - neither was the founder but both appear on several releases with both also curating archive releases for different labels. It is significant to both musicians but does not belong solely in the piece for one or the other - WP:MUSIC does allow for the inclusion of early projects by latterly notable artists but suggests redirects; this feature can't be correctly redirected to either. Google isn't going to give you anything useful here because of their name; any unit that has ever been described as "a band" will come up as well so citing Google is a bit disingenous (there are certainly not "no" Google hits - adding any other reasonable search term proves that). There are other articles and mentions out there which could be added but my experience tells me that there's no point in doing that now (I retired from AfD some time ago). I have corresponded with Totnesmartin and he has told me he is not a member of A Band now or ever was in their first incarnation - even so, he didn't start the piece, I did. If this goes the way of anything else even remotely non-commercial, I would suggest a redirect to Campbell and would ask that the content be copied to my userpage for integration. Ac@osr (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the fact that searching Google for 'A Band' doesn't count in this case, since the terms 'a' and 'band' are commonplace, and even the phrase "a band" is going to be on a number of more popular sites before any hits are shown for this band, especially since they're not exactly headliners. Regardless of this, this point is a moot reason for deletion, since Googling for more specific terms actually brings up pages that mention the actual band in question: Google search results. Rohaq (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable members, past and present, meets WP:BAND criteria #6. The mention in The Wire is non-trivial, too. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top 6 google hits are blogs and myspage pages, and then it starts to refer to a brass band with the same name. However, if it passes the notable members section, I guess it may pass. Although it is worth taking into account the rest of #6 on WP: BAND, ie: note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that commonsense exceptions always apply. Roger Blitzen (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Roger, I did address the matter of redirects in my response - if it naturally belonged with either Youngs or Campbell, then I would have set it up accordingly but A Band is in the unusual position of having been a starting point for more than one person whose paths have become notable of their own merit (as well as being a genuinly interesting creation of its own, although interesting and notable are not the same - to its occasional detriment, Wikipedia is not designed to be interesting). Obviously, as the originator, I say Keep but I'm not sure of votes by people who actually create the articles are considered valid - in my active days on AfD, there didn't appear to be a cogent policy. One way or the other, I feel that we have established that the piece is not in violation of WP:MUSIC. Ac@osr (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't redirect a title to 2 articles, can you? Two notable members, mention in music magazine, apparently influential. I think that justifies a keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbrewster (talk • contribs) 08:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mention in wire asserts not only notability, but also importance. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.