Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juice (American 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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juice (American band)

Juice (American 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)

Clearly far too under-sourced to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - doesn't appear to pass any of
  WP:BAND criteria. Most available sources are non-independent interviews. Others aren't sufficiently reliable or focused enough on Juice. I don't believe the prize(s) they received was/were significant enough to satisfy criterion 9. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete I agree that the sources here are coming up short--most of them either small time local, non-significant, first person, or in the case of the Journal Sentinel, purely of run-of-the-mill 'up-and-coming" profile variety in an otherwise reliable source. That said, having appeared on The Today Show--a major accomplishment--indicates there may be a certain notability achievement that simply isn't backed up with enough of the requisite WP reliable sources. In fairness, their name--"Juice"--is a broad term that makes google searches difficult. Possible WP:TOOSOON and no prejudice against recreation once they have accumulated enough sources to back up an article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What about criterion 12? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence my "weak" delete vote. It's the only thing so far that could kick this towards a keep, but being that it is only one criteria, and the dictum is "may be notable" when weighed against all factors, to me it still isn't quite enough. Especially when the appearance is put into context: the fourth hour of the show in a re-occurring segment where a DJ gets to showcase his monthly "deserves a bigger audience" choice of a heretofore unknown band. My sense is this band probably deserve a wikipedia page but, so far, there simply aren't enough significant third party sources to meet wiki criteria. But, as I stated, give them time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per criterion 12. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There appears to be a question of how to interpret
  NPOLITICIAN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I have found and added two more references, one a substantial profile in The South Bend Tribune, and the other a 9-sentence article and photo in The Boston Globe. There may be more - both the band name and some of the songs (Sugar) and the TV show are hard to search for, but with meeting
  WP:BAND #12 and having coverage in some RS and some less RS, I would say we have enough to keep the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I have struck my weak delate ivote from 11 Jan based on these two additional reliable sources putting it over the top. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (!vote shifted from delete) - between the Tomorrow show, the SBT and other coverage, I believe that there is sufficient, if only marginally, to come down in favour of Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a band that won Elvis Duran's Artist of the Month and appeared live on the Today Show. Now also very well referenced. Very notable. werldwayd (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Late to the day, but they have been signed. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2019 (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.