- 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. Article now contains reliable sources. Nom's stated withdrawal presumably means that she no longer advocates deletion, and the consensus of the remaining opinions is for keeping. Deor ( talk) 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Days (band)
- The Days (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)
This band lacks notability. The hits I got on google were Youtube videos and one site where any band can upload their music –
http://www.last.fm/uploadmusic. I do find it very odd that this article should have such a long editing history. I went through the history to try to find some references and still I could find no references to establish notability. The editing history seems to have mostly centered around the deletion and the addition of band members. It is all very confusing. I am not even sure who the bandmembers really were. Even in all this editing history I could find no evidence of notability. No newspaper articles, no book references.
Bfpage |
leave a message 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - A previous revision did contain a now-dead link to this BBC article, but I agree there's not enough there to establish notability. Nick Number ( talk) 05:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Just googling the band name and one of the members found all these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. -- Michig ( talk) 06:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with Michig's sources. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 13:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hold on... There are still no references in the article. I did remove the deletion template and I will contact the editor who claims to have all the references. He did not insert these references into the article. He possibly may think that providing the references on this discussion page is the same as providing references to the article. I'm sorry to have to revert this window but I don't believe that the discussion is ended. Bfpage | leave a message 16:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I am in the process of inserting these references myself. So please do not close this discussion until I have finished that task it will probably take me about 45 minutes. Thank you very much. Bfpage | leave a message 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- References 4 and 5 no good... Fansites
- I have inserted all of the rest of the references. It is up to the fans now to provide some more content that correspond with these references. Hey, I work in Lepidoptera-I don't know anything about British bands.
- I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion.
- Bfpage | leave a message 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- References to YouTube have been removed. Bfpage | leave a message 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 4 and 5 - the Oxford Mail and Bournemouth Echo are fansites? -- Michig ( talk) 19:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Keeping this page up sets a precedant to keep up pages of YouTube 'sensations' (I use this term very loosely, as their most 'famous video' only has 20,000 views), which really only take up space. And from reading the sources, the band is unremarkable. I am a music journalist, so I actually do understand this sort of stuff rather well. I did some research and the band was dropped by their record label (no idea when, but as of yesterday they are no longer on the Atlantic Records roster). The band's website domain is also now up for renewal (it expired on October 8th) so my guess is that the band no longer exists. The band also does not have a Facebook page, which nowadays is a must for any serious band. Also, from looking at their last.fm profile (a website that tracks when users listen to songs) they were only listened to about 100 times in the last six months, and predominantly by one or two people. I nominate this for deletion. Also reference articles 3, 6, 9 and 10 are not up to the criterion for acceptable notoriety establishing articles in my opinion (the first three are very short show reviews, and the last is from an online music blog), also none of the articles are from established music journals (signifying their non-notoriety in the music world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.86.80 ( talk) 17:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dismissing them as a 'YouTube sensation' simply because the article mentions YouTube doesn't make a lot of sense. They were a major label commercial pop band who split up some time ago, so not having a current website or facebook shouldn't be a surprise, and this sort of band doesn't get a lot of coverage in music mags because they were commercially oriented rather than arty or cool. --
Michig (
talk) 19:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps I should not have labeled them as YouTube sensations, but I still think the article is quite weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.86.80 ( talk) 21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dismissing them as a 'YouTube sensation' simply because the article mentions YouTube doesn't make a lot of sense. They were a major label commercial pop band who split up some time ago, so not having a current website or facebook shouldn't be a surprise, and this sort of band doesn't get a lot of coverage in music mags because they were commercially oriented rather than arty or cool. --
Michig (
talk) 19:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Charting singles, plenty of references spread all over the place. Note to anon, it's hard to take the "they don't have a rolling stone article/lots of hits so they don't matter" argument seriously. Small bands can be extremely important, buzz or not. Earflaps ( talk) 19:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Upon a review of sources provided by User:Michig, the band clearly passes WP:GNG/criteria #1 of WP:BAND. NorthAmerica 1000 01:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.