Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mile High (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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High (band)[edit]

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

AS far as I can tell, this band doesn't appear to be signed to any label nor have they released a full album at all. Coverage about the band is limited. I found this item in Aukland Now. This Timaru Herald article doesn't really cut it as it appears the coverage of the band was lifted straight from their own website bio. Whpq (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am novice to editing pages in Wikipedia, but I actually tend to disagree with you in regards to Mile High. This band has already achieved enough to be considered worthy of a wikipage. Their song "Now" was extensively played on the radios in New Zealand and 2 years ago was selected as one of the Top 1000 best rock songs ever in a vote by NZ's The Rock radio audience, beating songs by bands like Perl Jam (I am sure I can find a proof of that). They played in the Big Day Out which was the biggest musical event in NZ and till today they have faithful audience and full-house gigs in places around NZ. Lately, their song "Now" was selected by NASCAR USA for an ad, and here the official youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hkLNSux8s4. The fact they are not signed means absolutely nothing because they chose to remain independent like many other bands (big and not so big). What is really required in my opinion is to update their page accordingly with fresh information and proper links etc. I am happy to spend some time on this if this page is not deleted. I will check it in a week to see if anyone replied to this message of mine. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.156.11 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the only thing is that they have to pass WP:BAND. Being voted as "top 1000 best" is nice and would be something good and quirky to mention, but accomplishments of this nature aren't really something that is considered to give notability because polls of that nature are hard to verify (could be that the same group of people voted under socks, for example) and because most titles and awards aren't notable even if it was verifiable. Only about 1% of awards (and I'm counting a radio survey under this category) give notability. That is not one of them. As far as being a theme song for a NASCAR ad, that helps but it isn't entirely enough to show notability. Even if a band provides a theme song to a notable show, if there aren't reliable sources to show notability then that isn't enough to keep an article by itself. Now as far as being played on the radio goes, if it can be proved that it was a national rotation by a major radio or music television network, then that would qualify them for an article. Be aware that only playing in certain areas or by local stations does not count by itself. It's not easy to get on the local radio, but it's not such a hard task that it gives automatic notability. If the music concert they played in is notable enough and there's enough coverage to show notability, then that would also count. Really what it all boils down to is whether or not you have enough reliable and independent coverage. Fan blogs, pictures, posters, routine announcements of performances, fan-made videos, and the like do not count towards this notability. I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to state that we need the reliable sources to show notability. If it can't be found, don't take it too hard. Passing notability guidelines is pretty strict as you have to find multiple sources to show notability, with 4-8 being the "magic" number that usually (but not always) secures notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Day Out does appear to be notable as a concert, so if we can find sources that are reliable and in-depth about their performance, then that would help the notability claims out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a side note... never assume that in a week someone will do the work for you. Since you're an IP I'm going to assume that you're potentially new to Wikipedia and figuring out what's a reliable source and such might be daunting to do, but it's better to dive into an article and do the work rather than hope someone else does. I learned that the hard way and I've seen articles deleted because of that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we look at the various criteria of WP:BAND, it does not appear that any are satisfied.
1. The two items of coverage I found are arguably insufficient coverage, especially with one of the articles including bio material copied from the band's web site. However, more coverage might allow the band to meet point 1 (but I was unable to find such coverage)
2. The charts identified in the article are individual station charts and not recognized national charts.
3. No evidence of a certified gold record
4. National tours are asserted but there is no evidence of coverage of these tours (and to be honest, I'm not a fan of this criterion)
5. Not signed to a label
6. Individual members are not independently notable or members of other notable groups
7. No evidence they are prominent representatives of of a local scene
8. The awards are not major
9. The music competitions are not major
10. Music for a NASCAR ad does not qualify as the ad is not a major media work
11. The claim for placement in rotation is for a couple of stations and not a network
12. There is no indication they have been covered in a substantial segment on Radio or TV.
-- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I'm not fond of the national tour coverage criteria either, as most times those are over a very set period of time and doesn't necessarily show a depth of coverage, especially since "tour" can sometimes be stretched to pretty much only cover a band's appearance at a festival that is set in one location. (I.E., a band has 2-3 articles in relation to the festival but they go on to a few other cities beyond that so it technically counts as a national tour because they went far enough.) It's sort of vague, is it?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really did look for sources and initially there was some promise, but ultimately the only two sources I could find that were reliable and independent were the two currently on the article. The band might have played at a high profile festival, but there's no depth of coverage of their performance here or really even of the band in general. Two sources does not show notability, nor do any of the claims made earlier in the article. They might have planned a tour, but that tour seems to have not attracted the amount of coverage needed to show that it passes WP:BAND. Being independent doesn't mean that a band can't be notable, but it does usually mean that it's harder for smaller bands to gain media attention. In this case the band has gone a lot farther than other unsigned bands, but it's just not enough to pass Wikipedia's very strict guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments above. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP: MUSIC; if they could find some reliable 3rd party tour coverage to scrape a pass under WP:MUSIC 4 that might be more persuasive depending on the nature of the coverage, but as things stand there's not enough here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:48, 10 August 2012 (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.