Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverton (band)

Add links
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverton (band)

[edit]
Cloverton (band) (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)

Taking this to AfD for consensus. Is a top-30 showing on a Christian song chart enough to pass muster under WP:BAND? I interpret the guideline's #5 point to mean a national chart, which I'm not sure that Christian Songs or Christian CHR actually are. §FreeRangeFrog 03:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National chart is Billboard charts not a specific chart is what I read!HotHat (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to Billboard, the Christian Songs chart, among others, is compiled based on audience impressions. More generally, they use Nielsen BDS to electronically monitor over 140 radio markets in the U.S. The only other thing of note is that The Christian CHR...and Christian AC Indicator charts are compiled from playlist reports that stations playing those genres of music submit online. Based on all this, I think it's fair to say that yes, it's a national chart. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. A fairly low placing on a genre-specific chart based on specialist radio play is not in my view sufficient to establish notability on its own. Placing in a national singles/album chart that is based on sales would be good enough (in this case the Billboard Hot 100/Billboard 200), otherwise for these specialist charts, anything outside the top 10, while indicating that digging deeper may find something, needs to be backed up by some other claim to notability. My preference would be to only include national charts based on sales in notability criteria, but while a major nation such as the US still has national specialist charts based on airplay, I suppose we have to include them, but only the top 10-20, I think. My interpretation of a 'national chart' would be a nation's main sales-based chart, or one of multiple sales-based national charts in cases where there is not one representative national chart. --Michig (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 14:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Keep notability is clearly established in the aforementioned article. Just look at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria No. 2, when it states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It does not state that it has to be the highest chart for singles, which would be the Hot 100, rather it means any Billboard charts and they have hit two of the song charts the way that our US national charting system does it.HotHat (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it is not a notable chart then why do we have the Christian Songs article on here in the first place? So, this means by virtue of the charts notability it lends credibility and notablity to the said article here in question.HotHat (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I found that MUSICBIO criteria No. 11, which states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network," and this has been proven by K-LOVE. So, now it is 100 percent notable. Furthermore, the song is notable along with the band that sings the song is notable!HotHat (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The band may not be major, but I'll second HotHat there as I listed to KLOVE and they placed it quite a bit last summer. That, combined with the top-25 charting on Christian Songs is enough for an article for now. If there isn't any sort of news about these guys in a few years, it may be a good idea to delete. Toa Nidhiki05 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment how is rotation on K-Love stations being shown in the article? There is a reference to a K-Love page that has some information on the band but mentions nothing about rotation.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having problems verifying these claims as well.--RadioFan (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to revise my statement. http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/christian-songs?chartDate=2011-07-22 only lists the top ten tracks. I can't get into billboard.biz either. CHR isn't listed at .com at all. --
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cloverton_(band)&oldid=1140140492"