Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophets and Kings (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 delete. The apparent SPA's have been given little weight here, the consensus of those who argued policy, and not the crystal ball, is clearly for deletion. Courcelles 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets and Kings (band)

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

Band that appears to have only minor local notability in Chattanooga, TN; sources are blogs or local arts websites. Doesn't meet

WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Band actually has minor notability in Atlanta as well, and Carbondale, IL; Notability in Chattanooga is actually quite large. Sources include reputable online independent music magazines (Magnet and Impose Magazine are not minor) Meets WP:BAND's first criteria

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. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

Also, meets criteria 7:

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city

Jthawkins2001 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criteria 7 still says that "all other criteria should be met," and I'm not seeing verefiable sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Prophets & Kings debut album is on rotation at the following stations:

Official adds for Prophets & Kings:

Bagel Radio San Francisco CA
KEUL Girdwood AK
KRUA Anchorage AK
KTCU Fort Worth TX (P1) (M)
KUMD Duluth MN (P1)
KWUR St. Louis MO
WIDB Carbondale IL
WRBC Lewiston ME
WRKC Wilkes-Barre PA (M)
WUML Lowell MA (P1)
WXAV Chicago IL
WXCI Danbury CT (P1)

RPM (electronic) format adds for Prophets & Kings:

Aggie Radio Logan UT
CHMR St. Johns NL-Canada
CILU Thunder Bay ON-Canada
CJLO Montreal QC-Canada
KAOS Olympia WA
KBRP Bisbee AZ
KDNK Carbondale CO (A)
KFAI Minneapolis MN (P1) (A) (M)
KGLT Bozeman MT
KRUA Anchorage AK
KTUH Honolulu HI (P1)
KWCR Ogden UT
Radio Phoenix Phoenix AZ
WMXM Lake Forest IL
WNRN Charlottesville VA (P1)
WRRG River Grove IL
WXOU Rochester MI

(P1) - Priority-1 Stations

(M) - Mediaguide Stations

Jthawkins2001 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The purpose of having articles with notable coverage is that way there's enough verification for them, and I didn't see any third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jthawkins2001 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcespam above isnothing but personal blogs, incidental coverage of local performances, or otherwise unreliable junk. There is no way to verify that the stations in question are playing them, nor can I find anything of substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as at least the 'Beginnings' section is
WP:COPYVIO of one of their sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Upon closer inspection, it looks as if most of the wiki is a cut-and-paste job from the blog I referenced above. PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Keep these guys are huge in Chattanooga and represent the only electro-bash style to make serious waves. Just because they aren't U2 doesn't invalidate them. Keep --BeardfaceMBeard (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — BeardfaceMBeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep While the above links are all GOOGLE search links there are many notable indie review sites in there such as spinner and impose that I believe do lend credibility to the band. They have also been reviewed by a fairly well know blogger on www.the1stfive.com Stratparrott (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Stratparrott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The wall of links above didn't provide anything of substance, and actually almost nothing from outside Chattanooga. I cannot find any solid sources online to establish
notability — frankie (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Absolutely Keep If this bands page is deleted now it will just inevitably need to be recreated as their fan base especially in the Southeast is rapidly growing. Between the radio play, the positive journalism their just released debut is consistently earning and their rabid fan base it's the wrong move to delete this page just as the band is starting to pick up some serious momentum. Very much hope these facts will be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misenscenester (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Misenscenester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep These guys are showing up on our official CMJ charts and are being played across the U.S. Their record was the #1 most rpm added record the week of it's release. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2619846/RPM%20Adds%20Chart%20Issue%201212.pdf Allenhamilton (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i do not usually give an opinion on articles in this field but the arguments given above amount to "They Will Become Notable Soon". When they are, there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I'm trying to communicate that these guys are notable. I'm sure they'll start showing up on the web more or however you are judging their notability. In the meantime, however, they have broke onto the CMJ top 200 at 198. Not an easy task. They are just behind other such notables as Wilco and Blink 182. I work in the radio industry and I can assure you that the CMJ top 200 is notable. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2619846/Radio%20200%20Chart%20Issue%201214.pdf Allenhamilton (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2011 (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.