Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination)

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. Clear consensus to keep, no !votes for deletion apart from nom. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromagnon (band)[edit]

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

Notability concerns-- #163/200 songs of the 60s on a low-volume music site. All references given are just to generic database pages; One link to an album review is a review for a different band. WP:MUSIC #5 is NOT met; go to the official ESP-Disk Wiki page or website and it clearly lists one album ever released on their label (requirement 2+). Even if that can be excused or avoided, #5 alone with zero other notability hints I can't accept. Guideline reads "may be notable if...", it's not automatic. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can be convinced this can be kept, but you've got to offer more notability from a better variety of sources. Passing WP:MUSIC#5 on a technicality at best won't cut it for me in an orphaned article, sorry. The 1-week AfD period is there to allow page improvements, so by all means. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a low volume music site? Also, the review was very clearly a source for the claim that Japanese band Ghost had covered Caledonia on the album which the review is reviewing. I'd also like to add that this article was previously not orphaned (there were at least two articles linking two it, though one has been redirected to another article.)(Albert Mond (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Low volume = not particularly something you grab off a newsstand? When notability says 'Major' media source, that's the goal at least. Keep in mind that notable within a community (or music genres does not mean general notability... but I'm not disqualifying that either, by any means. More is just better. Even then, it's only 1 sentence. It'd be hard to convince many people that the only thing even remotely close whatsoever toward a lean into Wikipedia notability standards is one sentence in one article. For links, it just isn't much past WP archives, user pages, talk pages, a few categories. I don't know. Blah. Even I'm getting flustered trying to look like I'm flustered. A little more searching shows they're with Tntrees Records now (as of late 2009), and that isn't exactly setting off a lot of lights. Ug. I'll keep looking later. Anyone is free to edit the article, of course. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain what you mean about esp-disk? their wiki page lists hundreds of albums released. why are you saying only one was released? Aisha9152 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to Cromagnon's releases on ESP, I believe. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

keep - i added a reference to julian cope discussing them which anyone who cared to google could easily find. i think this band is clearly notable and don't understand why this is being renominated, as apparently in the first nomination there was only one delete vote, who was the person who nominated it. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, there weren't many opinions given, and the keeps all relied on part of the policy that was factually incorrect in the article. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote doesn't so much; just because one person notable enough to have a Wikipedia author for music content says one thing about the band still isn't at all notability. If you look at that site, said writer has 4 total reviews. That doesn't count as a reliable source of reviews. Even if an A+ known name says something in praise of a band doesn't make it notable. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the original deletion thing was cross posted to a music notification thing, is there a reason you didnt do it this time? Aisha9152 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that both releases are listed as having been released by "ESP-Disk" on AllMusic. AllMusic, from my experience, gets label info from distribution, as opposed to editors writing it in, so it was most likely released on ESP. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep- They have general notability with the Pitchfork Magazine entry. Rockgenre (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmm, Pitchfork Media a "low volume music site"? Allmusic a "generic database"? There isn't an overabundance of coverage but there's enough to justify inclusion in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence until ~~I fell off~~ I mean, I found this writeup at allmusic, I quote "this rarity does have some historic value" gotta keep it. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Michig summed up my feelings quite well. There is just enough RS coverage available to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have just added another cite where they were mentioned on page 49 in a book called A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000. Rockgenre (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close: See WP:SNOW. Pickbothmanlol 01:36, 21 November 2009 (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.