Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Confetti

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. The presented evidence indicates that this article meets our notability requirements. Any renaming that needs to be done can happen outside of this venue. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Confetti[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Only actual ref is on Reporter, a connected band, who don't have an article. Seems like promotion by WP:Single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (this one is important), [10]. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename/redirect to "Reporter (band)" based on the sources that 78.26 provided and a Google search that I ran. The band has been around since 2000 (per their own website) and seem to have generated a fair amount of buzz as Wet Confetti, then broke up in 2007, but then the same musicians re-formed as Reporter. They also appear to be on a more notable label now. There's a fair bit of coverage for both bands but not enough that each warrants its own page. Coverage seems to be limited to publications close to their home town. I don't know that any are major publications, but I think there is enough depth of coverage to claim notability. It's slim. Ivanvector (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a redirect would not be possible (Reporter (band) does not exist) but a rename or creation could occur. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. Rename this page, but also make a redirect at Wet Confetti because it's a reasonable search term. Ivanvector (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, should the article be re-named? It seems the band received more press coverage as Wet Confetti, but signed to a more notable band as Reporter. Which should trump? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the band dissolved as Wet Confetti and then re-formed as Reporter with exactly the same members, this is essentially one band that went through a name change and switched labels, not two separate bands. I think the article should be under their current name, while explaining that they formed as Wet Confetti. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to satisfy any one of the criteria for WP:BAND DocumentError (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by 78.26 are some of the sources that make it notable; however, the article just excludes the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As has been noted, there are sufficient refs to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and probably rename) – 78.26 has already identified enough coverage for the subject to meet WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. Other sources include "The Anti-Hit List" by John Sakamoto, Toronto Star 11 Nov 2006: H11. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 9 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.