Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad (fourth nomination)

Add links
From 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 Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad

This article has the sort of procedural history that makes me want to crawl in bed and hug my teddy bear. Suffice it to say, it has been deleted at AfD, kept at AfD, and sent to DRV in the interim for reasons of sockpuppeting, vote soliciting and other improprieties several times. The most recent DRV consensus results in this relisting. I'd suggest everyone consider the article anew, without reference to any previous discussion. This debate will be semiprotected to prevent IP spamming; in addition, because of prior complaints of "vote soliciting" on every side, notifying other Wikipedians en masse of this relisting is strongly discouraged. I'm sure most interested folks have the article watch-listed by now, so extra notification, besides the AfD template on the article, shouldn't be needed. Let's try to get a final resolution here, if at all possible. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete For me at least this band is just BARELY missing the mark here. Wildthing61476 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the media mentions push it over the edge on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let me point out that I like indie bands, before I start, so this isn't an anti-indie vote or anything. But I've looked this over several times, and these guys don't meet the necessary mark. Badlydrawnjeff mentions the media mentions; an analysis of the four mentions in the article would indicate that one is a mention in a calendar listing, another is a blog with a passing reference to the band in an article about a local club, and a third requires registration, so I've no idea what it is. The article in College Times is about the only potentially solid reference to the band that I can track down, and I waded through several pages of Google listings as well. To me, that suggests they fail on the multiple, non-trivial mentions. And a look over WP:MUSIC indicates that they miss the mark on all suggested guidelines. I'm sorry, but that all adds up to a delete, with absolutely no problem allowing a recreation down the road if they meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But aren't you overlooking the HeartattaCk, Phoenix New Times, and Arizona Republic articles? And don't those meet WP:MUSIC? (Not to mention the AP mention, but in fairness to you, I hadn't found that at the time you posted this comment). PT (s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used to edit a weekly newspaper. We used to list about a dozen or so events every week as a calendar, including neat little writeups about the bands. They looked exactly like the New Times mention. It's a calendar listing, not an article. The AP (which, for anyone who doesn't mouse over the link, does not stand for "Associated Press") mention is a part of a band list, and is not an article. The HeartattaCk piece looks like an editorial of some sort to me, and mentions the band name once, waaaaaay down at the bottom; is the whole thing about AJJ? I can't honestly tell. And I'll give you the AZ Republic article - but it still fails multiple, non-trivial coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tony Fox. —Chowbok 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As per my previous point-by-point explaination from WP:Music, repeated below:
    • Has not had a charted hit on any national music chart.
    • Has not been certified gold in any major country.
    • Has not gone on an international concert tour. Has performed in other states in the US, but does not qualify as a full national tour.
    • Has not released two albums, hasn't released any albums on a major or indie label. They are releasing a split EP on a relatively small indie label, but this is far cry from the two albums.
    • No reliable cited sources. There is a minor mention in a Phoenix New Times, a local paper, but this is not a major article. The AZNightBuzz link is a blog, therefore not reputatable. The eCollegeTimes has only 50 unique hits on Google, not reputable. The State Press is a bigger article, but is only a small college paper and part of a news page . Does not hit "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". No national press whatsoever
    • No major members from other bands
    • Not a notable style for a city or a local scene of a city. If it were, they would have received more verifiable press mentions.
    • Has not won or been placed a major music award. Won one "Best of Phoenix" award from a local paper, and was nominated for another. These are nowhere near "major".
    • Not performed performed music for a work of media that is notable, or been on radio
    • 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm. Does not pass either as notable. Also isn't mentioned on AllMusicGuide.
This does not fit WP:MUSIC, it definately does not fit the spirit of WP:MUSIC, they aren't a notable band. This is an article that should be deleted. Halo 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My citations, noted several times now here, in other AfDs, in deletion review, and on the talk page directly refute your erroneous claim that this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I respectfully disagree, and not enough evidence has been rpesented to change my vote or opinion. Halo 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say no national press, yet I clearly listed below that there is. There are opinions, and then there are FACTS. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about that Heartattack thing wouldn't call a small music 'zine national. If you're on about the Alternative Press mention, it wasn't a non-trivial mention. I copied/pasted that a while back. The facts are that the press at best misses the _intention_ behind multiple non-trivial reliable sources, if it hits it at all. Either way, I'm happy to cite WP:IAR - I believe even if it does meet WP:BAND, something I contest, it's against the spirit of the thing and that's what matters more than getting into petty particulars. My reasons are clear, and no amount of to-the-letter pedantry is going to change that or the fact this article misses WP:MUSIC, if not by the Wiki-Lawyering letter but certainly the spirit of the thing. -Halo 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, why have I had to repeat this !vote four times, now? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because enough people disagreed with you to keep the article up, but other editors on the Wikipedia did not respect that, and have abused policy to keep trying to knock this article off, for whatever reasons or personal prejudices. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, can you please be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Accusing people of "abusing policy" isn't good karma, whether true in your opinion or not. Halo 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't in incivil to deny the article when it is properly cited with accurate assertions of notability? Doesn't that speak to a personal agenda rather than improving the project? PT (s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to get into bickering, but I'd like to reiterate my call for WP:AGF and state that the second AFD was a borderline "No Consensus" and _not_ a keep (not that it's relevant in any way to this AFD whatsoever), and that everyone has their own opinions and that there isn't a big PT conspiracy/vendetta. Halo 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here are the reasons this article should stay: the band has toured through the United States; the band has been covered in multiple non-trivial publications (Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic, significant in the fourth largest city in America, are certainly reliable enough sources for Wikipedia); the band has been covered in zines and blogs that cover the sub-genere (including HeartattaCk); the band is a prominent representative of a genre and ethic in their area; the band has won accolades and placed in awards, competitions, etc.; and all these assertions of notability are cited in the article. I believe the article meets the letter AND the spirit of WP:MUSIC. (By the way, as far as it pertains to previous discussions, I recall no accusations on either side of sockpuppetry.) PT (s-s-s-s) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After running as broad Lexis search, I found a grand tI otal of sixteen references, all passing references (including schedule of bans) and all from Arizona publications. There is not charted songs or albums, or no national exposure as contemplated by WP:MUSIC. I'm sorry, but we should have articles for every local act in the country, even if they are top notch acts.-- danntm T C 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. EVula 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read my comments above and below, as well as on the talk page. I have shown why it does not fail WP:MUSIC. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done so, and found your argument wanting. I've also reviewed the four sources provided in the article; one doesn't exist, one has a whopping two paragraphs about the band, and one requires people to log in before accessing the site. The other links you've provided elsewhere only show that the group has toured in various cities, a claim that (a) wasn't being denied and (b) doesn't exactly validate the article as per WP:MUSIC. Sorry, but my vote remains the same. EVula 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One doesn't exist?! What do you mean? So what if you have to log in? Just because you won't take the time to look at the sources doesn't mean they are not existant or reliable. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • [1] I clicked the link, and see absolutely nothing that suggests its an actual source. I've even looked at the page's source, and see nothing there, so it can't be a browser issue. As I said, it [effectively] doesn't exist. As for the site that you have to register for, I (as a rule) do not register for sites that require accounts just to view the content, and I'm not particularly inclined to change that behavior. If that upsets you, so be it, and I apologize. EVula 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went to the New Times site and was able to get to the article. I have reprinted the text on the Talk page for your perusal. As for the ASU site, it wasn't a login required site when I originally cited the article, but it is representative of a printed material. I'm sorry if you don't want to take the time to check the sources, but that kind of discounts your comments about them not being reliable, since you're not taking the time to really look. I, on the other hand, have taken plenty of time to find these sources and cite them accurately within the article, as to verify all assertions of notability. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • *sigh* I never said that the ASU source was unreliable; I merely said that, of the four sources in the article, one required you to log in. That's all. As others have done, I'm going to direct you to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (and, while we're at it, WP:OWN). You've yet to prove to anyone's satisfaction but your own that the band is notable; the majority of the links provided have only shown that they have toured, which in and of itself is not a particularly notable accomplishment. The few articles you have provided that actually do cover the band either do so in passing or are non-notable in and of themselves. If I may make a suggestion, the spread-out nature of this AfD is also making it almost impossible to follow; I would suggest consolidating all of the sources that you've provided onto the talk page, where we can quickly and easily see them all; I'll be willing to admit that perhaps a noteworthy and reliable source has been lost in the mess of all this, and consolidation might fix that. EVula 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You need not bother directing me to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Do all the editors pointing me towards that REALLY think I've never read them before? Could it be that you just dislike my manner? So be it. As far as proving to anyone's satisfaction the notability of this band, you will see in the last THREE AfDs and the deletion review, as well as this AfD, that there are many editors who are convinced. And they did not need me to consolidate all the sources provided, they merely read the article and saw the sources and external links mentioned at the bottom of the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Heh. You know, if you've noticed a lot of editors pointing you to WP:CIVIL, perhaps there's a conclusion to be drawn. Just sayin'. —Chowbok 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The conclusion I draw is that some editors like to cite "civility" and "good faith" when someone they disagree with is passionate about their position. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Friend, have you considered that there are ways to argue with passion wilst not insinuating that others are lazy or abusive or biased. Giving others cause to become defensive does not improve your case. You know, "you catch more bees with honey...". -MrFizyx 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per danntm and WP:MUSIC --NMChico24 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsigned, no releases on any label, no evidence of n on-trivial coverage (i.e. nothign more than the occasional gig guide and such), as close to an A7 as you can get without actually being one. Guy 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without bias or prejudice - I support the indie scene and this outfit might one day 'make it'. But for now - this article is not warranted due to non notability. Encise 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
  • Keep because of touring and coverage in a number of reputable publications. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: national press; touring - As already mentioned in the article, there is the HeartattaCk column about their lyrics. Also, their appearence at Denver Fest is mentioned in AP. Their tour dates have been mentioned in the press, and you can see they've played in Los Angeles, Eugene, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, and Washington. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, PT, I have checked all the links that you have supplied, but you have not quite persuaded me that this article meets WP:MUSIC. I'm not persuaded that the series of gigs in the south and West of the USA counts as a "national tour", and their presence in listings doesn't count for me as non-trivial coverage. The other articles are all local (to their state of Arizona), and most time out or require registration to read, so I can't rate them. Not appearing on allmusic.com doesn't help their case, and nor does the paucity of ghits. As others have said, they may become more noteable in future, but they aren't there yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little surprised that people are discounting the sources as unreliable because they don't want to take the time to read them. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • PT, this discussion would be much more productive if you were to try a bit harder to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as requested above by Halo. First, most of the "references" you supplied are trivial, which doesn't encourage anyone to pursue the whole lot; secondly, the two which were unavailable were both local to the band's home town. If you reread my comment, I did not dismiss them as unreliable, but based on their loaction, I do question their relevance as sole planks for a notability claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not quite yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND, and the sources provided are not of a quality and/or quantity that would meet WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... again. Sorry, PT. No go. -- Kicking222 01:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete They seem close, sort of near the grey area of WP:MUSIC, but I can't really find evidence that they meet the spirit of the guideline. GassyGuy 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems marginally notable and is referenced. Everyking 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, this one really is on the razor's edge, almost-there in numerous ways, and I almost feel they're being penalized for living in a country that's too large (they've toured in an area much larger than most "medium-sized countries"). But I also see no reason why they can't wait a little while to have an article. Unless something unexpected happens, they'll surely qualify soon, and the article can be recreated at that point. I counsel patience. Xtifr tälk 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cribcage 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the last.fm test with 131 listeners. They seem to be a hardworking local band. Maybe next year. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last.fm is not Wikipedia policy; WP:MUSIC is, and I have demonstrated how this article meets it. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm... WP:MUSIC is not policy - it's a notability criteria guideline. People are able to completely ignore it if they wish, and judge the band on their own merits and criteria for notability... it's just that a lot of people /do/ follow it as it usually makes life easier. Also please consider WP:IAR. Halo 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't that having it both ways? For an editor to tell me the article must be deleted because it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and then when I show how it does, to be told that WP:MUSIC isn't a policy, so we should delete it anyway? PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a well established /guideline/ for establishing notability, something that is key to Wikipedia. However, it's not policy - indeed, you can cite reasons outside WP:MUSIC. It's just that /a lot/ of people use WP:MUSIC for establishing notability, and if you don't reach it you're likely to get a lot of delete votes as it's a fairly reliable catch-all even if it's not perfect. That said, you're right - it can work both ways and someone is perfectly entitled to vote Keep despite a band not reaching WP:MUSIC. -Halo 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MUSIC is not fufilled to my liking. Someone seems to be having some WP:OWN issues... Daniel.Bryant 09:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Leaning Delete (ed. Fzx)]: Doesn't really meet the music notability guidelines. My main objection is the lack of an album, which I think is a good benchmark for judging a band's visibility. I'm leaning towards delete. --Slowking Man 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Vyse 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the media attention and presence of national dates is sufficient in this case. Hard to say why we have to keep dealing with this, just letting it be would sure save a lot of our time, and also, be in the spirit of Wikipedia. snug 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The spirit of Wikipedia" does not cover "let non-notable entities have articles because its easier than having repeated AfDs". EVula 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the entity is notable, as defined by WP:MUSIC. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously, that is a point of contention, but my statement still stands (divorce yourself from your emotion investment in this particular matter and imagine it addressing a different article entirely, and you may see the validity of what I said). EVula 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This has nothing to do with emotion. Please don't try to provoke a bad faith argument. I have citations, sources, and WP:MUSIC criteria on my side. I am not certain the motivation for deleting this article, when all the reasons people bring up are proven untrue by everything I have actually put in the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • *sigh* I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I'm just going to end my involvement in this particular fork of the discussion, rather than actually risk provoking you. EVula 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine. All I'm trying to provoke here is for people to actually read the article, note the citations, how they verify assertions of notability, and investigate the sources if they're still dissatisfied for some reason. See WP:OSTRICH for a further explanation of this. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability here is borderline. I can understand and respect those wishing to delete, but if the spirit of WP:MUSIC is to weed out little brats with MySpace pages and not to marginalize indy music then I feel we are being overzealous. Still, they should meet the letter of at least one of the criteria, here is my read at this time:
    1. Their tours fail as they have yet to travel the entire US...though a similar region in any "medium-sized" country would be "national".
    2. Their albums fail because they are not on a label...though they are part of a collective and are reported to soon have a release on a significant label (the last bit being unsubstatiated).
    3. "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media...(university newspapers are usually fine)" This one I think they may pass based on the article in the Arizona Republic and the award in the Phoenix New Times. There are also other borderline press mentions in various college papers and offline content that I can't review in the popular zine heart attaCk.
    4. All other criteria, they clearly fail at this time. Thus I would suggest we pass them based on # 3 alone. This may seem very generous. The alternative seems to be to delete now and return to debate 1, 2, 3 and possibly other issues all over again. I can live with either of these, but as snug suggests, why spend further time. -MrFizyx 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assuming MrFizyx's analysis is correct, the Arizona Republic "article" is a calendar entry appears to be a concert review, which is not a non-trivial article and the Phoenix New Times article is a local "best-of" for a year for an undetermined categorization "BEST HOLY LOCAL BAND". Who knows if there's more than one? (I read the article and some of this AfD, but not all....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl, Arthur Rubin, Halo, et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on the MrFizyx analysis, except that I consider criteria three to be a fail instead of a pass. Even with one more source on top of the one bit of nontrivial coverage, I would tend to disagree that multiple has to mean two. It would really depend on the quality of the extra source, though. Erechtheus 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LINKS TO BORDERLINE PRESS COVERAGE--I left these out in my statement above: (1)Here is google's cache of the ASU News article that now requires log-in. (2) PT has copied content from another article that was no longer viewable here. (3)This was in College Times whatever that is. (4)The zine, heart attaCk has a better distribution than some small newspapers, but unless someone has a copy of issue #49.... I'll let others decide if these are trivial/non-trivial, just take a deep breath, keep an open mind, etc. -MrFizyx 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Thank you for sharing that information. I had seen items 1 and 3 and do not find them compelling. Now that I have seen 2, I do not find it compelling, either. I don't have this offline source in question to say anything about it. For me, this article is still in delete territory. Erechtheus 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: You're welcome. I'm not sure what the criteria may be for "compelling" press coverage, but the author has included more than three cites to sources that are verifiable secondary sources (several having paper and online avialability). I still count at least three that are not "schedule mentions" (as the ones cited by Tony Fox) nor concert reviews (as claimed by Arthur Rubin).[2][3][4] Hence, I'm still willing to extend a "keep". There does seem to be some growing consensus here that the limited geographic scope of the sources is problematic and that WP:MUSIC is intended to focus the encyclopedia on acts of national stature. I disagree, but realize this is a perfectly reasonable position. It is not, however, part of the current guideline and I would encourage those who feel it should be to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). -MrFizyx 19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My opinion that this article's sources meet WP:MUSIC has not changed. And, just for the record, no one told me about this new AfD. - Lex 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everyone above, viz.: fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 13:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Media mentions are trivial, fails WP:MUSIC. Comment PssssT, it's great to be passionate but sometimes you just have to let it go. Backchatting practically every opinion, especially ones from time-served battle-hardened veterans who know the chorus and verse of WP:XYZ off by heart, does not an edifying spectacle make. Much love, Deizio talk 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should I let it go? After four AfDs and a deletion review, other editors haven't. All I have done is follow the rules, write an article based on WP:MUSIC, and see it targeted for deletion again and again. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here's a run-down of the paragraphs in the article, and whether they meet WP:MUSIC: 1. No; 2. Changing line-ups → No; 3. Scraping for scraps → No; 4. weasel words → No; 5. No; 6. I'm guessing opening slot here → No; 7. "Western U.S.", "basement" → No; 8. No; 9.-Discography. No; Notes. If local college dailies and alt-weeklies is the best ocverage they got → No. In summary: not notable. ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find these comments a bit snarky, T&E. "Scraping for scraps"? I really don't understand the mean-spiritedness of those editors calling for deletion (not all, but most). PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. It is a clear case. --BenWoodruff 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The band isn't just notable enough, according to WP:MUSIC. It's only an article at the end of the day. Recreate when there are enough references and the band is more notable. CloudNine 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. As for reliable sources, I really don't see one. The ASU article is expressly out per WP:MUSIC: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." The AZ Night Buzz is a blog. And the College Times? Definitely not something I would consider reliable. The article in the Phoenix New Times is not displaying for me, so I am unable to judge the content of the article itself, but the publication as a whole is a local paper for a large city, but it is still not a far reaching paper, leaving its value rather limited as well. Even if these articles were considered to be reliable sources, the next question is, would this band meet WP:MUSIC? They have not gone on a national tour. They have toured a portion of the U.S. They don't have two or more albums on a major label, no major music competition, no major award, they aren't getting radio time, and they don't have any independently notable members. As for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...", I see nothing to support that argument, even with the sources given. So with or without the sources given, I believe this band does not meet WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I understand, "school newspapers" means high school papers, not university ones. Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic should definitely be considered reliable. They do happen to be getting radio time, but I didn't bother including that since I don't know how I would find a source for it (Los Angeles radioplay, from what I understand). The New Times awards should be support enough for the last argument you mention. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Parsssseltongue blanked the article and talk page and marked them for speedy deletion. I've reversed this even so this discussion can be continued here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the previous commentations and of WP:MUSIC, this band just doesn't have enough publicity to warrant its own article.--WaltCip 13:10, 27 October 2006 (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/Andrew_Jackson_Jihad_(fourth_nomination)&oldid=1140116588"