Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kudzu Wish - Wikipedia
- 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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. My db-band tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May be sufficiently notable for a Keep. They've released an album in their own right as well as a split album with Disband. Their record label bio states that they have played 313 shows and have had 10 tours of North America. If that could be verified by an independent source, they could pass WP:MUSIC. Borderline at the moment, but maybe other editors could swing it towards a keep.--Michig (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a fair amount of coverage of their live shows/touring, e.g. [1][2][3] --Michig (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this: KUDZU WISH "REVERSE HURRICANE" --- # 10 CMJ ADD / # 137 CMJ TOP 200
Meet the 2nd criteria for notability?: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart."
(Italics are mine). 65sense (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not certain that's a music chart in the sense intended. That looks to me to be a list of the songs added to various radio stations' playing rotations. Admittedly, there probably is a fairly close correlation between the two...Xymmax (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK. So, let's assume that the #10 CMJ ADD doesn't meet the criteria. Surely then, the fact that the band charted at #137 on the CMJ TOP 200 charts does meet the criteria (any national music chart). Not only that, the band toured both nationally and internationally (assuming you agree with me that Canada is a sovereign nation). On top of that, the band is also on a label that has released material by artists that have been mentioned/had their album reviewed in Rolling Stone, Spin, NME and more. I know I'm a newbie and all, and if the article needs editing then by all means give me some constructive criticism, but i'm starting to feel a little picked on here. 65sense (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not certain that's a music chart in the sense intended. That looks to me to be a list of the songs added to various radio stations' playing rotations. Admittedly, there probably is a fairly close correlation between the two...Xymmax (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep appears to have been subject of non-trivial coverage in published sources which are reliable for the purpose of music criticism. <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This does provide a good amount of information. Article should be kept. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, I commented, but did not vote above. In my above comment I asked about the charts. The article's author is correct that the second chart listed is a true album chart, and I therefore believe the band has met WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (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.