Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad VanGaalen

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 per consensus – Pea ceNT 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad VanGaalen[edit]

Non-notable artist, per WP:BAND. Scorpion 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable pages related to the artist:

Keep Chad VanGaalen:

WP:BAND
1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. see: http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2007/01/1701.cfm
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). see: Sub Pop (record label): http://www.subpop.com/scripts/main/bands_page.php?id=445
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. see: CBC Radio http://radio3.cbc.ca/bands/CHAD-VANGAALEN/
And: also from the Edmonton Journal http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=e3534ed0-f0f1-48a5-9213-7b35baaa99b3

- Merge Flemish Eye, Infiniheart and Skelliconnection into main Chad VanGaalen article Keep All- - Ozzykhan 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What planet do you have to be living on for Chad VanGaalen to be non-notable? As Ozzykhan notes, VanGaalen does meet several of the keep criteria listed at WP:BAND. Speedy keep; nominator needs to familiarize himself with actual policy. Do not merge the albums or the label: also per WP:BAND, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. And do not merge Flemish Eye; VanGaalen is not the only artist on that label. See also WP:SNOW. Bearcat 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it funny that people fight like hell to keep minor characters from famous TV shows (ie. The Simpsons) from getting pages, but then allow noname bands who have had minor success (at best) to have pages. What Wikipedia needs is consistancy, because I can guarantee you that a hell of a lot more people have heard of the 200+ Survivor contestants or many minor characters from Prime Time shows who don't have pages. -- Scorpion 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How many people have heard of this" is not a criterion of notability. The criteria of notability for musicians are explicitly spelled out at WP:BAND, and VanGaalen does meet several of them. This simply is not deletable under any existing Wikipedia policy. If you think policy should be changed, you're free to propose that through the proper processes, but trying to delete articles that do meet our existing criteria as written is not one of those processes. Bearcat 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what policy, exactly, does this qualify as deletable? Bearcat 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to satisfying the WP:BAND notability requirements described by Ozzykhan above, the artist meets the primary criterion of notability, which is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". In addition to the brief mention in Edmonton Journal article above, note reviews in Stylus Magazine, Seattle Weekly; and Prefix Mag; reviews in major music websites like Pitchfork, Stereogum and Coke Machine Glow; feature on Nerve.com; a profile on freaking MTV.com. Oh, also in addition to the above, Metacritic says he's been reviewed by URB, Under the Radar, The Onion (A.V. Club), and AMG. Seems pretty notable. schi ^talk 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that the Metacritic link above is to reliable source reviews of Skelliconnection, which should also be kept. Metacritic lists reviews of Infiniheart published in Alternative Press, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, Magnet, NME, Prefix Magazine, and Pitchfork Media, among others. Both albums certainly meet the primary notability criterion of "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". schi ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above, please perform at least a single search before nominating articles for deletion, not everyone has heard of every published artist. —siro χ o 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep it has been demonstrated this person meets multiple of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. No opinion on the albums. Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending references provided in articles Per above it sounds like they are probably notable. However, references to establish notability must be provided in the article. Schi mentioned a bunch of potential published sources to cite, but I didn't see any of them listed in the article itself. So my recommendation is keep but only if the article is cleaned up to put the references for verification within it. Dugwiki 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easy for the closing admin to do. Not really their responsibility, but if it improves Wikipedia, it's something to consider. The sources don't need to be formatted yet. Added is enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the references that have been added to the article, I think that notability has been established. --Eastmain 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a problem with having articles on independent artists if they've risen above a certain threshold of notablity. I think the media references in the article are sufficient to establish that this is a recognized artist with a fan base. Sixth Estate 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Modest success but success nevertheless. User:Dimadick

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.