Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parcels (band)

Add links
Source: 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parcels (band)

Parcels (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)

Fails

WP:NMUSIC most press coverage seems to be about their one song "Overnight" with Daft Punk SeraphWiki (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

It does not, AXE sells concert tickets, they can not be considered an independent source for music articles. NME and Vogue are interviews, which are also excluded under
WP:NMUSIC. An AfC reviewer should be familiar with the notability policy. I should also add that I did not check to see who reviewed the article before nominating. I saw an article very similar to others that have been deleted (notable for only one collaborative song) and I have been cleaning up the newly accepted articles all day, which often have cites to Wikipedia and other errors that reviewers miss if they are not using certain tools - so it has nothing to do with the personal attacks that you posted to my talk page (without evidence). SeraphWiki (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NMUSIC #1 for a three sentence stub. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising
I should add that I am not criticizing your acceptance. The decision of whether an article ultimately meets the notability standard for inclusion can't and should not be made by one reviewer. There is an article from the Guardian and there are a few others that are not cited like this but they are all about the collaboration with Daft Punk. See this recent AfD that closed delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Nash with a similar situation. The decision of whether to keep an article is ultimately left up to consensus in cases like this, so I am not criticizing you for accepting the draft.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't matter if much of the coverage has been about the song, it is still their song. More coverage exists as well. eg. [1] [2]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to approve this at AfC on the basis that it met GNG, but
    POINTy behaviour by SeraphWiki. Kb.au (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I will say that I personally would not have approved it for mainspace until the sourcing was at least improved from the current version. Maybe reviewers don't know that interviews are not independent, secondary sources under
WP:NMUSIC and is indistinguishable from other articles that have recently been deleted, but this AfD has taken on a personal tone by comments mostly from other reviewers protecting the article so I am not going to push for it. I think it may be still be deleted sometime in the future, as I think other editors will be reluctant to comment now that editors have inappropriately personalized the AfD discussion to protect an article that would otherwise be deleted without controversy. Has there been any news coverage since that one single in 2017? We can wait a few years and maybe sources will become available, but if they don't, most articles like this will eventually be deleted at AfD. I think it should be deleted, but I'm not going to push for it, there is no need for personal attacks here. SeraphWiki (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. I think this meets the GNG. Some web mentions not in the article:

Billboard (mentioned above); Sydney Morning Herald (mentioned above); The Courier Mail (mentioned above); The Northern Star; Volterre; TheMusic.com.au (pre-'Overnight'); sfd; DIY magazine; The 405 (about a different song); INDIE magazine (pre-'Overnight'); Vogue Paris (different interview than the one in the article); ABC's Triple J

I'm not saying they're all RSs, and certainly some are interviews, but they add up to a sense that there's attention being paid to the band. The quotes in this (which is pure churnalism, useless as a source in itself) suggest there's more coverage on top of that. All in all, I think the article is well worth keeping and I hope Randall Peltzer sticks around to work on it or other topics. Mortee (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NMUSIC. Not just a one song mention, with additional sources available per Duffbeerforme or Mortee.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really expecting this AfD to generate this much interest. You can see the very similar one for
WP:NMUSIC. There have been a couple of music drafts I have wanted to pass but objectively I don't believe the sourcing will meet the community standard for independent sources, so I have left them for other reviewers.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The 405 one doesn't count for much on its own, sure; just part of a suggestive collection. If all these publications, and those in the article references, think the band is worth talking about (and, yes, to) I'd say it follows that we can as well.
As an alternative approach, I think this from Radio 1 implies it's on rotation there, which would pass
WP:NMUSIC #11. This 17 minute live performance on Radio 1 must pass NMUSIC #12 (if their appearance on Conan didn't). I must admit, I hadn't heard of them until I saw the AfD, but I'm enjoying getting to know them, so I'm rapidly losing objectivity in the matter :-) Mortee (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I would agree that the 17 minute performance on BBC satisfies NMUSIC 12. Thank you for making an effort to improve the article mid-AfD. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, it's been fun. Thanks for introducing me to new music! Mortee (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parcels_(band)&oldid=1069003506"