Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Changes (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) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Changes (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Tagged as unreferenced since 2008- only ref is self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Am also nominating the bands only (non charting, non refereneced) album.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of minutes searching found significant coverage from Allmusic (multiple), NPR (multiple), Daily Herald, Pitchfork, SPIN, Chicago Tribune, Paste, and Heeb. The lack of sources in the article is a reason for improvement not deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, Please show us these links that you claim were easy to find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't have time this morning, but here's some links: NPR: [1], [2], Allmusic: [3], [4], Pitchfork: [5], Daily Herald: [6], Heeb: [7], SPIN: [8], Chicago Tribune: [9], Paste: [10]. I suspect several more could be found with a more thorough search. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that most of those links serve very well to establish this band's non-notability. All they evidence is a PR push in 2006 which got a little bit of coverage. This is not notabity: its a pebble chucked into a pond in Chicago with a total lack of ripples. The others? Evidence that records exist: none that anybody actually listened to them.TheLongTone (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have established criteria for inclusion and one of the most widely accepted is significant coverage in reliable sources, which is clearly satisfied here. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources listed above by User:Michig show that the band in question has received coverage in independent, reliable sources, thereby meeting WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Here are a couple more reviews of their work, in The Fader [11] and NME [12]. Gong show 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. significant coverage is what it says. have you read the NME review? half a dozen lines. (incidentally saying they are rubbish which is why nothing has been heard of them for the last seven years.TheLongTone (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 158-word NME review is certainly no War and Peace, but it's more than a trivial (i.e., passing) mention and from a notable publication. At the least, I thought it might have some value in supplementing the rest of the material. If this was the only piece of coverage on the band I would agree that they are not notable. As it stands, even if the review did not exist, the band clears the notability bar given the other coverage presented. As for the band being "rubbish", there are plenty of examples of critically panned - but still notable - musicians, songs, films, video games, etc. Gong show 02:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone has a vendetta against the band. If a PR "push" was all it took to land reviews in Pitchfork and NME and Spin and the Chicago Tribune then these rags would be forced to publish hundreds of reviews of crappy basement bands every day. Full disclosure: I really like one song by the Changes, a band I found out about through... Pitchfork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.84.224 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Changes (band) as meeting WP:GNG. Then merge Today Is Tonight into the The Changes (band) article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG through independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 15:01, 7 January 2014 (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.