Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blübird
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.--Wizardman 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rock and roll band of two 12 year olds with no album. However, they did get some third-party coverage because they appeared in a short HBO documentary about kid musicians. No hope to ever grow the article past a meaningless stub (at least for now). Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice; when the forthcoming album's released someone can recreate the page if the album's successful enough to warrant them having an entry. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although they do technically meet WP:MUSIC, as the article demonstrates multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, I don't see that this article will grow beyond a permastub in the foreseeable future. We have to exercise common sense here. As Iridescenti says, they may merit an article once their album is released. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As the above editors noted, the band fulfills WP:BAND. Furthermore, it has been around for ten years -- why can't the article grow from a stub? I don't see any substantial argument why it can't. We're not a crystal ball, even in the reverse sense. Just because it might not grow from a stub doesn't mean we should delete it. In just as many ways, it might grow from the stub. Rockstar915 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and re-create later if needed, per above and, mostly, below. Rockstar915 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I get what you mean. We delete non-notable bands every day, yet, some day, one of these bands will become Arcade Fire. Should we then look back and say "darn, we should have kept this one when it was a permastub with a MySpace page and a single article in a local newspaper announcing their gig?" Also, you say the band has been around for ten years. I don't get that sentence: the band consists of two girls who are 12 years old so unless they were rocking in Pampers... Pascal.Tesson 20:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the page wrong re: the ten years statement. Onto more substantial arguments: I realize that we delete non-notable bands each day. My argument was that obviously the band is notable as it fulfills WP:BAND. Or at least that seems to be the consensus of everyone who has voted thus far. Why delete a band that all the editors above claim to be notable? It seems like deleting a band that fulfills WP:BAND just because no one's heard of it or because they haven't been in the NY Times is leading down a slippery slope. I've never heard of them but they definitely seem to fit the criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. Rockstar915 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument, as far as I understand it, is that they might barely meet WP:MUSIC although I'm not convinced that the band has really been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Pascal.Tesson 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least they meet WP:MUSIC. As far as I can see, the only reason for deleting is because people feel as though it *might not* become anything but a stub in the foreseeable future. But it seems that they're releasing an album, so why can't it become not a stub? If I am convinced otherwise, trust me, I'll switch my vote -- I have no personal feelings towards this band. But as it stands, the only reasons for deleting have been: "they meet WP:MUSIC, but the article probably won't be much more than a stub, so we should delete." That argument is not nearly enough to convince me to delete the article. But again, I am very open to have my mind changed. Rockstar915 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He he he... if you're open to change, let me give it another try! First, I'm not saying that they meet WP:MUSIC: it all depends on what one thinks constitute significant third-party coverage. If you look at the actual references, they're pretty minimal and uniformative and in my mind (but I do see how others might find otherwise) they fall short of what we need. As for the upcoming album, well we have no indication that it's anything other than a self-release. If you go to their website and actually listen to the two tracks they have there, you'll see that the production is pretty minimal and I think it's safe to assume that the album (if it ever comes out) won't be sold commercially on a wide scale and, consequently, it would be a stretch to think significant third-party coverage will result from that release. Of course, I wish all the best to the two girls but chances are we'll never get more than a permastub. I have no problem with re-creation if things evolve differently and deletion of an article is not a catastrophic thing, especially when it has as little content as the current one. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! You won me over with that one, and I changed my vote accordingly. The more I thought about it, the more I realized you were right -- there's not enough context to keep the article as is. If the album release garners any attention or further press, then we should go ahead and reinstate the article then. Do you think we could possibly keep a cache of the page if the latter does in fact happen, thus making the recreation less of a pain? I should commend you, by the way -- I'm generally difficult when it comes to changing my mind. :) Rockstar915 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks for keeping an open mind. As far as keeping a record of the current content, this actually is done automatically (in some weak sense) because admins still do have access to articles that have been deleted and their history. As I'm not an admin myself, I don't really know the details of t but I'm sure someone can fill you in on that and, like I said, any re-creation of the article in the future is bound to contain all of the pretty slim info that's already in the current stub. Pascal.Tesson 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem, re: my open mind. :) In the end, you're right -- if we need to tackle the recreation of the article, then we can get an admin to help or we can just rewrite it entirely. I'm not that worried as is, considering the current content on the page (or lack thereof). Rockstar915 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks for keeping an open mind. As far as keeping a record of the current content, this actually is done automatically (in some weak sense) because admins still do have access to articles that have been deleted and their history. As I'm not an admin myself, I don't really know the details of t but I'm sure someone can fill you in on that and, like I said, any re-creation of the article in the future is bound to contain all of the pretty slim info that's already in the current stub. Pascal.Tesson 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! You won me over with that one, and I changed my vote accordingly. The more I thought about it, the more I realized you were right -- there's not enough context to keep the article as is. If the album release garners any attention or further press, then we should go ahead and reinstate the article then. Do you think we could possibly keep a cache of the page if the latter does in fact happen, thus making the recreation less of a pain? I should commend you, by the way -- I'm generally difficult when it comes to changing my mind. :) Rockstar915 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He he he... if you're open to change, let me give it another try! First, I'm not saying that they meet WP:MUSIC: it all depends on what one thinks constitute significant third-party coverage. If you look at the actual references, they're pretty minimal and uniformative and in my mind (but I do see how others might find otherwise) they fall short of what we need. As for the upcoming album, well we have no indication that it's anything other than a self-release. If you go to their website and actually listen to the two tracks they have there, you'll see that the production is pretty minimal and I think it's safe to assume that the album (if it ever comes out) won't be sold commercially on a wide scale and, consequently, it would be a stretch to think significant third-party coverage will result from that release. Of course, I wish all the best to the two girls but chances are we'll never get more than a permastub. I have no problem with re-creation if things evolve differently and deletion of an article is not a catastrophic thing, especially when it has as little content as the current one. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least they meet WP:MUSIC. As far as I can see, the only reason for deleting is because people feel as though it *might not* become anything but a stub in the foreseeable future. But it seems that they're releasing an album, so why can't it become not a stub? If I am convinced otherwise, trust me, I'll switch my vote -- I have no personal feelings towards this band. But as it stands, the only reasons for deleting have been: "they meet WP:MUSIC, but the article probably won't be much more than a stub, so we should delete." That argument is not nearly enough to convince me to delete the article. But again, I am very open to have my mind changed. Rockstar915 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument, as far as I understand it, is that they might barely meet WP:MUSIC although I'm not convinced that the band has really been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Pascal.Tesson 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the page wrong re: the ten years statement. Onto more substantial arguments: I realize that we delete non-notable bands each day. My argument was that obviously the band is notable as it fulfills WP:BAND. Or at least that seems to be the consensus of everyone who has voted thus far. Why delete a band that all the editors above claim to be notable? It seems like deleting a band that fulfills WP:BAND just because no one's heard of it or because they haven't been in the NY Times is leading down a slippery slope. I've never heard of them but they definitely seem to fit the criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. Rockstar915 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't agree that they coverage is non-trivial, and thus I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. Two of the articles are properly about the TV show, and only mention the band in passing. (And I'm not sure HBO counts as an independent source for information about an HBO show.) The third article appears to be a very brief summary of a very brief interview with one of the girls in a local paper. Even if we stretch a point and consider that last an acceptable source, that's only one, and it doesn't seem likely that any more will turn up. I think it's pretty cool, but I don't think it's notable. Xtifr tälk 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually... on that note -- I do think that their HBO coverage fulfills #11 of WP:MUSIC. They weren't the subject, per se, but they were part of the doc... But I still keep my vote as delete. Rockstar915 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was a half-hour show featuring six different performers. They weren't the subject, so they don't meet the criterion. On top of that the HBO article mentions Úna, not Blübird (just like the Williamette Week article). What I'm sseing is that Úna Rose is almost-but-not-quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but Blübird definitely is not. Xtifr tälk 17:36, 1 April 2007 (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.