Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.M. (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. The three references given (referred to in the article as "features") are no more than trivial coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are three sources and one of which is the L.A. Times. If that is not a notable source, I don't know what is. --Destroy1998 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the LA Times reference is a blog, not the paper itself, and the reference just says "this band wasn't invited to the festival that I'm writing about, but they set up and played on the sidewalk anyway." As nominator said, this is trivial coverage of a nonnotable band. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blog is not necessarily a dirty word. When "Web 2.0" was the new hawtness, major media rushed to call parts of their site blogs. It is still part of the LA Times. Perhaps you'd like to tell me which band in the piece about the entire festival receives more coverage, or perhaps you'd like to strike your characterization of it as unfair and misleading. - 86.44.6.14 (can't sign, tilde isn't working :D)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the delete voters are being extremely (unfairly?) tough. The blog is certainly part of the LA Times, and the author is a deputy editor on a section of the print version. The mention of the band is actually two long, meaty paragraphs. The LA Record sources are initialed posts which, though brief, describe the band's aesthetic and overall sound in some detail, recommend a particular song, and describe the guitar solo therein... Sounds like a keep to me. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of whether or not the LA Times blog entry is notable or not and whether 2 paragraphs out of 9 is trivial or not, that's still not nearly enough coverage to be considered "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained clearly why I hold the opposite view. Perhaps we simply differ in our applications of it, but I invite you to read all of notability guideline 1 one more time, with particular attention to its guides indicating what may constitute triviality. We are as far from that here as we are from AM being on the cover of Rolling Stone. ;) -86.44.6.14 —Preceding comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two brief show reviews where this band was the opening band. To me, that is the epitome of trivial coverage. That a band exists, plays shows, and has a sound that can be described does not mean that mentioning it briefly—as a tangent to the main point of the article (reviewing the headlining band), no less—is non-trivial. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a sound, an aesthetic too, and a recommended song, and a particular guitar solo? In conjunction with two relatively lengthly paragraphs about the band, with the lead singer being quoted, in a piece on the website of the LA Times? Notable to me. Your standards for notability are higher than mine, and i would gently suggest that they are higher than wp:music's (not that there is anything wrong with that). (Btw, they are not the opening band in one of the Record sources. It seems rather they share the bill; certainly they share the focus of the piece. Although a differing implication that may be drawn is that they are one of the opening bands, which is perhaps what you meant.) - that anon IP again

Delete. Agree that references provided are nothing more than trivial coverage; i.e. per latimesblogs.latimes.com, A sloppy, scrappy little quartet from Garden Grove called AM, which had neither applied for nor been invited to play the festival, set up on the sidewalk two doors down from the Echo and began to play an impromptu set of good-times garage-rock... [1]; and per larecord.com, Also playing is A.M., young kids out of Orange County who commonly play guerrilla-street shows in parking lots with generators...[2]. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dot dot dot indeed. What can you think selective quotations from the sources do to explain your view? Are you saying that a band who play that style of show cannot be in Wikipedia regardless of coverage? Interesting position. —86.44.6.14, 22 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 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.