Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Crush

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 now that article has been updated with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Crush[edit]

U.S. Crush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

When I opened the page my first thought was that my screen had turned red due to the large amount of dead links, This article is about a defunct band, it has no references, and some examples of its blue links are to the years 1996, 2000, 2002, and to the Californian Punk Scene, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the articles notability, or lack there of. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need to delete it; their Myspace has some information about who they are. Alex (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entirely fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources (the band's own Myspace doesn't count). Oli Filth(talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete They do have a profile on All Music Guide, which equals one reliable source. Other reliable sources, however, have yet to appear (mainly because Google keeps giving me crap with sentences like "help us crush" in it). If someone with more patience than I can find more sources, then I might go for at least a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per addition of sources, seems to just barely meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Neutral Keep. I've been able to drag up a VH1 artist page which confirms an album released on Virgin Records and their record is available for sale on Amazon, but may change vote if this isn't enough to assert notability. Doc Strange (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright then, i've changed my vote to neutral. Doc Strange (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote yet again, due to more information being discovered. Doc Strange (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any evidence of their album or claimed 'radio hit' on discogs or billboard.com or any mention of the band at the labels they claim to have been signed to. Not sure a one line mention at VH1 is enough for notability or to create any sort of article. --neonwhite user page talk 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AMG link lists their album as being on Virgin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accoridng to amazon.com their only album was released on immortal and according to billboard.com it was released by virgin records.[1] The artist has no chart history. --neonwhite user page talk 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The breakup year isn't even definite - "c. 2002" No notable information on it. Timmehcontribs 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their Myspace reads "In 2002, the band tried to record another album" and, then "While working on asecond album, U.S. Crush called it a day". That's one of the reasons why I wrote "c. 2002". Alex (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could put up a page on MySpace proclaiming myself to be God King (as, according to Google Web, 350 people already have) without anyone batting an eyelid. That wouldn't make it true. Why are you putting so much trust in an unreliable self-published non-independent source? Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, according to AMG, their one-and-only album came out on a major label, and they got put into heavy rotation at KROQ. I'm still not sure that's enough, however. Lankiveil (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep; AMG seems to assert notability. Mention of KROQ wouldn't hurt, either. StaticElectric (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While searching in Google to reach a decision on this, I found a few things which I've added to the article. They signed to a major label, and there seems to be sufficient independent coverage to meet notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any second party sources please present them. Merely asserting that they exists has no weight here. --neonwhite user page talk 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done - have you looked at the article recently?--Michig (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more claims to notability than there were before. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was nominated there was little or no evidence of significant independent coverage. Now there's plenty, and that's enough to pass WP:MUSIC via criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 7 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/U.S._Crush&oldid=1070644150"