Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23rainydays

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. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23rainydays[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fits WP:BAND #1 (reviewed in ReGen magazine, Frederick News-Post), #5 (has released multiple albums on an important indie label), and #8 (nominated for the 2009 MTV Music Video Award for Best Break Out artist by MTV). The article author just needs to learn how to do <ref>in line references</ref>. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Mr. Thomson's logic above. The article really needs clean-up and wikifying, rather than an AfD. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep - I have cleaned up my titles and some of the content and have included inline references to legitimate sources. I am new to Wikipedia and have scoured the reqs so please let me know specifics if additional cleanup is needed. thank you for your time.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikmacgregor (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep At least they've released stuff, toured and got refs, unlike some of the bands that try to get articles (one I recall was a fourpiece, or would have been if they'd managed to get a fourth person - probably didn't last much longer than the article did...) I have trouble with inline refs still, so well done. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like their music but they don't quite meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Regen is not a publication - just some website. Radio-Active-Music is not "one of the more important indie labels". And as for being nominated for "MTV VMA Best Breakout Artist Award" - this is not even a national award, but one that is selected in 8 local markets[1]. As such it is hardly a "major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with above please read what the MTV breakout award is before you make up your mind. They basically came in third in a local battle of the bands, it was sponsored by Mtv but it really is little more then a local contest. Ridernyc (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ReGen is published (electronically), it just isn't printed. The guidelines do not specify that it must be print. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a self-published website. The fact that the website operator calls it a 'magazine' is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a some dude putting out a site for himself, it has a staff, the dude that started the site (Nick Garland) isn't the editor (Ilker Yücel), and there are multiple writers under that editor. Not exactly self-published. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just enough coverage of them around, and the NME site (via YouTube) has two live tracks and an interview from the MTV Video Music Awards, what look like trailers for the main show. Not a clear-cut case, but I see no real reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (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.