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) Jdcomix ( talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Dovetail Joint (band)

Dovetail Joint (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I recently closed an afd on this bad as delete but Chubbles has contacted to say they had fresh evidence of notability through Billboard charting. I have therefore undeleted and listed to allow this claim to be discussed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Delete One song on the Mainstream Rock chart which is a radio chart, I don't think that enhances their notability to any great degree. They still have trouble passing WP:GNG. For some underground bands you can find an entry in a music encyclopedia book or maybe an article in Billboard Magazine but not for this band. Mattg82 ( talk) 22:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• To closing admin - please note that, after this !vote, another chart placement (Modern Rock) was found, and a large amount of work was done adding sources to the page, including two Billboard articles. Chubbles ( talk) 02:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Changing vote to Neutral per Chubbles improvements. Still a bit on the fringe in terms of notability but at least it has some goods sources. Mattg82 ( talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sorry I'm so late to the party, but this band meets the notability threshold. Charting a hit on Billboard's charts establishes notability per WP:MUSIC (it actually hit two Billboard rock charts). That's actually a really important indication for the noteworthiness of bands from past eras - press coverage from a band from 1999 doesn't always make it into Google. Having said that, some of that press still manages to show up in search engines; the nominator even noted a Chicago Tribune article (they actually got two significant articles in the Trib), coverage by Allmusic (including a full album review), and the Augusta Chronicle. I've also found two articles in Billboard about the band, an article from the Chicago Daily Herald, and a profile of the guitarist in Guitar Player magazine. I am adding more sources as I find them, including some that establish radio rotation - another WP:MUSIC bullet. Chubbles ( talk) 19:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete Weak Keep - I was the nominator in the first deletion proposal and will admit that I missed the fact that "Level on the Inside" made the Billboard chart. But that is still just one song, while the additional sources found by Chubbles are only slightly helpful in establishing any more notability. That is because the articles, including those in Chicago Tribune and Billboard, are pretty much basic introductions to the band's existence. AllMusic does not get beyond this in its page on the band either. WP:GNG (especially the significant coverage rule) and WP:EXIST are important here, in my opinion. Since I missed the chart entry my vote is now "weak delete" "week keep" but I would not raise a fuss if the admins decide to let an improved version of the article survive. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I guess I am surprised that the nominator is not swayed by the work I've done here. The article is, really, a totally different artifact than the one originally nominated. A ton of promotional puff (which clearly seeped into the last discussion's delete !votes) was cut, and no fewer than six independent sources have been provided, some of which covered the band twice, and several of which (including the two Trib articles) discuss the band's backstory well beyond mere acknowledgment of existence (including Allmusic, whose album review is substantial). And all for a band whose hit came in 1999, when virtually all reliable sources were paper-based. The band had a bona fide top 20 rock radio hit record and did nationwide tours; WP:MUSIC bullets 1,2,4, and 11 are all met here, which is beyond what is ordinarily asked of bands at AfDs. The standard in this discussion seems to be higher than it usually is. Chubbles ( talk) 02:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Changed my vote above to "Weak Keep." Actually I am usually a Wikipedia inclusionist and prefer articles to be improved rather than axed. I'm still a little skeptical on this band's notability beyond a single hit song, and the articles about the tours are still just brief mentions in my opinion, but kudos to Chubbles for doing the work. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. User Chubbles has done admirable work finding more references to save this. None of them really make much of an argument beyond the original Afd nomination other than add more proof that they received press beyond that originally cited. It is more or less the routine coverage a band signed to a major label gets. This includes recognition by AllMusic. As pointed out, the charts are Billboard radio charts which, in the higher numbers, are often times more reflective of a push by the record company to get airplay rather than a popular embracing of the work. Basically, this is a band that was given their shot, didn’t live up to expectations, was dropped by the only record company that that would release their music (outside of their own self-released efforts) and they broke up. It seems to me this is an article because a band existed rather than attained any sort of notable achievement. And yet, WP guidelines are clear and Chubbles is correct that qualifying criteria is met per the references (in major publications no less, rather than the usual independent, niche pubs), chart activity, and a release with a major label. At the risk of this becoming a protest vote, I think the fact this band merits a wikipedia article is a good case study of why guidelines for qualifying criteria for WP:MUSIC needs to be re-assessed. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep as multiple reliable sources have been added so that WP:GNG is passed as well as WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. More references to sources have been added, band meets GNG. Sam Sailor 12:00, 16 February 2018 (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.