Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young Werewolves

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. If in future The Young Werewolves gain more fame and more references become available, the article can always be recreated. Neıl 龱 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Werewolves[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music): no claim to major-label albums; requests for verification or references on even non-notability-qualifying items have only resulted in reference links that don't verify the facts they're used for. Biggest claim to fame seems to be a one-liner in The Village Voice that mysteriously doesn't even appear on the Village Voice website. Closeapple (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only album by this band:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Items that will qualify for speedy deletion if the articles above are deleted: Young Werewolves (WP:CSD#R1); Category:The Young Werewolves albums (WP:CSD#C1); Image:Cdcoverlarge.jpg (WP:CSD#I5); possibly Image:Youngwerewolveslogo.jpg (WP:CSD#I3) if license isn't clarified by then --07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per my nomination above: see Talk:The Young Werewolves#Bad citations everywhere! AfD imminent! for details of my wild goose chase trying to track these references down. --Closeapple (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for not meeting the music notability guidelines, as per Closeapple's well-documented efforts on the article talk page to verify and track down resources. Not opposed to recreation if it can later be proven that the band and album pass WP:MUSIC.Maybe I should actually sign this? -- saberwyn 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Passing of WP:MUSIC by this article is too close for me to call... abstaining. -- saberwyn 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, even putting aside the problems with verifiability of sources. --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) : 1. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.51.124 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I don't think this band has met musician criterion 10 (the one quoted above) in either case:
1. The band has not "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme ..., performance" as far as TV unless (1) that single episode (#10) of The Real World: Philadelphia meets notability in itself (which it doesn't) and (2) the band's song was actually what normal people would view as an active performance or theme song, not just background music that MTV paid a fee for because the slightest use is a technically "broadcast performance" for licensing purposes. A passing use of a song in a non-notable episode of one season of one series does not make the performers notable.
2. The band has not "performed music for a work that is notable, e.g. ... inclusion on a compilation album" unless that work (compilation) is itself notable: Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan! is the only album that has an entry on Wikipedia, and appears to fail WP:Notability itself; its record company doesn't even pass WP:Notability. Again, if an album itself doesn't meet WP:Notability (music), a song can't meet notability just from being on the album, and the band that performed it can't meet notability for performing the song.
As User:Wenli said below: even if it were to barely squeak by on either of those two, "it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" as Wikipedia:Notability (music) says.--Closeapple (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Sorry, random IP above, but having a song featured in an episode of The Real World is nothing to hinge notability on. Also it states their music was licensed for used. It says nothing about it being used and no reliable sources are given either. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet verifiability and notability guidelines as per above. --Several Times (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep New revision/edits posted in order to establish WP:MUSIC It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]--random IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.136.37 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources given. I don't think that being broadcast on a single episode of The Real World meets criteria #10, but even if it does, WP:MUSIC states that "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 70.12.51.124 has removed the AfD template from top of these articles; and 144.226.230.36 removed it a second time from The Young Werewolves (album) after it had been restored once. (Yes, even the part that said not to remove the template.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored the AfD templates and put warnings on the anonymous user talk pages. --Closeapple (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
closeapple, et al i removed AfD template because new/improved references were added. No disrespect, (in fact I have a great respect for the 'scrubbing' done in wiki) but after researching other musical acts' articles and updating young werewolves article, wanted to provide neutral setting. Please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Also, upon researching other articles marked for AfD and noting how other editors rely on google, i couldn't understand how young werewolves could be lumped with others that have little presence online and otherwise. A semi-comprehensive or cursory google search on 'young werewolves' denotes and yields significant notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.14.194 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note okay i just read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion...but it is frustrating when someone does their honest/best at being neutral in trying to provide content...but if the content is inappropriate, then so be it. It is additionally frustrating when Allmusic, Fangoria, FEARnet, Legends Magazine, Ol' Skool Rodz all notable publications (worthy of wiki articles) have all deemed ‘young werewolves’ worthy of consideration/review/notability. Also, licensing placements were provided via youtube but were taken down after youtube scrubbed all copyright infringed material. How can a musical act ‘verify’ licensing placements when the medium is television/cable? If scans of checks cut for the use of licensed materials are permissible, they can be provided but would that be appropriate for wikipdedia?173.4.14.194 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)random IP[reply]

Comment I did find an empty Allmusic artist page, withone review. I'd like to see more reliable sources (with links) before I change my vote. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for checking Doc Strange. I recreated wiki article with several more links to reliable sources. See newest version. I tried to limit sources to publications that had wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.14.7.231 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources have been added to the article proving notability. I've verified several of the given sources; even if the ones I didn't get to fail as reliable sources, notability has been established. Blogs, fanzines and the like are considered reliable sources when the information being backed up is the opinions or statements of the blog or fanzine itself, by the way. Gimme danger (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2008 (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.