Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspection 12

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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection 12

Inspection 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded back in September but contested after deletion. Still not convinced that they meet

• Weak Delete doesn't appear to claim anything that satisfies
  WP:BAND and no citations either.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Criteria 1 and 5 at
  WP:BAND
  are fulfilled

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/inspection_12/artist.jhtml http://www.allmusic.com/artist/inspection-12-p480906

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." One album released on Fat Wreck Chords subsidiary Honest Don's, and one on Suburban Home Records & Takeover.

Also 6. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Only one of the bandmembers, Peter Mosely is noteworthy enough to have his own article. Not enough to fullfill the criteria, but I just thought I'd drop this here as well. --Kaysow (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding #1, you do realize that the VH1 link is a mirror of Allmusic, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't ask me why everyone's using the same bio, but I don't think it' such a terrible thing. It's also featured on iTunes, MTV, AOL, Yahoo, MSN and Starpulse. Anyway, here's two good ones - http://www.punknews.org/review/404 http://www.punknews.org/review/6328 and also, the Honest Don's album is featured on the Fat Wreck store http://www.fatwreck.com/store/band/77 --Kaysow (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There is coverage in
  WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Those three cites are pretty good for
    WP:BAND #1 and I'm minded to move to keep. All three are in the same local paper though, which is a bit thin. What coverage was there in the Florida Times-Union? Is it a similar piece to those or a passing mention of gig dates?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Those three citations are from the Florida Times-Union, which publishes in Jacksonville. Those are just three I picked out of a large number of articles from that paper over the years: see here for the full results. Some of them note that the band received "national attention", and I guess the
      Allmusic biography and the review in Allmusic provide some additional evidence of that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Weak Keep, lots of cites from the Florida Times Union, which seems a reasonably large paper. Marginal though as it's all from the same local paper, would be better with a variety of sources. Will give the benefit of the doubt though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just notable per
  WP:Music have albums on notable indie labels, passed muster for AMG (albeit not a great feat), other secondary sources are local in nature but they do exist. Seems enough overall. A1octopus (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]