Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Vegas

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 no consensus to delete, but suggest citing some sources in the article. W.marsh 16:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Vegas

I recently speedied the article for non-notability, but the deletion was contested at Deletion review. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As it stands, the article does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria per se. However, as the deletion review process pointed out, the band's official website does quote a lot of press coverage, which (if included in the article), may meet this WP:MUSIC criterion: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)" In other words, the question becomes: are the press sources quoted on the official website "non-trivial", "reliable", and "reputable"? --Nehwyn 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I've read enough to make me think this band is on the move. -bobby 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability established in article. It's doubtful that it can, at this time, be established per WP:MUSIC. If, in the near future, the band meets the criteria, then they should have an article. But not today. - Crockspot 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheter it meets it or not depends on the reliability and reputability of those sources. Can anyone with some experience in the US unsigned music environment confirm or deny reliability of those sources? --Nehwyn 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some aren't "reliable," many are. Taken as a whole... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a rather important distinction. Because if the reliable ones are not included in this article, it definitely does not meet criteria as it stands. --Nehwyn 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We can add them. Not too hard to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No official album released, no organized countrywide tour, press clippings are scraps. Maybe in a year. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think most people are voting keep just because there is a picture of the band on there...the article still doesn't assert any claims of notability and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.--MonkBirdDuke 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, most people are voting keep because they have generous thresholds for retention. Which I don't. Delete per WP:MUSIC, bdj's attempts to prove otherwise notwithstanding. Eusebeus 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• It also appears they meet the "tour in a large or medium sized country" clause of WP:MUSIC, too. [1]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, [2] There is a ram file here of a live radio interview and set they performed on BBC radio which I believe meets the criteria "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network" User_talk:Sounddezign 13:28, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has had alot of alt radio play. Recording with a major record label. --Oakshade 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: They have had press coverage throughout the UK and parts of America. They have also qualified as they were on BBC Radio regularly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliverstable (talk • contribs).
• Weak Delete: As it stands, it fails WP:MUSIC, but given that apparently there are reliable sources, I would give this article some time to get them. However, as it has been >1 week since the assertions of notability stated here, and no follow-up in the form of references on the article, I say wipe it. Palfrey 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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.