Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass Beach (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Beach (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Run-of-the-mill band. As a draft at AFC, I would decline it as not addressing any of the musical notability criteria, except that I declined the draft as duplicating this article. Also does not address general notability.

Note Number		Independent	Significant
1	Describes band as WP:UPANDCOMING	?	No
2	Interview	No	?
3	Interview	No	?

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naïve Google search shows that the band exists. We knew that. It also shows that the band had a first album. No third-party coverage found (and no third-party coverage listed in sources). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage: [1], [2] (reliable?), middling coverage: [3], [4], [5], more trivial RS coverage: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Overall, enough to justify an article in my view. --Michig (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's work. Also, Run for Cover Records is an important indie label, I think. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources show significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Agreed that we should integrate the material from the draft article, though. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. There seems to have some coverage to pass the bar. Pilean (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all sources here appear to the product of a music PR push, notability is lacking. Acousmana (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough of the coverage such as Paste Magazine, AllMusic and Stereogum is significant coverage in reliable sources and not pr, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for one, anyone can submit copy to Allmusic, and labels/music pr firms do this routinely to raise profiles of bands/artists, so this does not constitute "significant coverage," Stereogum is also dubious with respect to connections to pr companies - it's how this industry works, nobody wrote about this band because they were notable. Acousmana (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic bios and reviews are written by Allmusic staff writers. They are absolutely not written by labels or PR firms. --Michig (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you check out most of the newish acts listed in this AFD category you will find that the overwhelmingly majority do not have a staff written bio or album reviews which they would have if AllMusic really was a pr operation. In fact what they mainly get is a database entry only. Even the NYT welcomes submissions as do many reliable publications, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2021 (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.