Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saving Aimee (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Aimee

Subject has some relatively minor claims of notability, none of which meet basic notability criteria. As a result of the lack of reliable sources the article is struggling for sources for most of the info. The previous afd claimed the band had toured nationally however significant coverage in reliable sources is still unavailable and the afd seemed to be closed without enough discussion or valid points made (needed relisting imo). My main concern is that an unsigned band formed in 2005 having only released one downloadable single is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. neon white talk 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You state "significant coverage in reliable sources is still unavailable" - a quick Google search found coverage in Metro ([1]), NME ([2]), and the St. Albans and Harpenden Review ([3]), as well as web coverage in Noize Makes Enemies ([4]), dailymusicguide ([5]), and The Dish ([6]). It probably isn't going to get to GA status in the near future, but coverage exists.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of those the only one i would consider both verifiable and significant would be the Metro article and that is extremely brief. Notability usually requires significant coverage from multiple sources and i think this case, an unsigned band that has practically no releases, in particular needs extensive rather than sporadic coverage. It needs articles about them in major newspapers, music magazines etc rather than passing mentions in articles about other bands and mentions in small local newspapers. --neon white talk 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article, the group has = "only released a free download single 'Small Talk'" -- fails notability standards big time. Anyone who posted themselves singing to YouTube or whatever has more establish notability than this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Several sources Michig listed above are significant publications. Coverage in NME and a profile in Metro are reasonably significant indications of notability. In addition, as Michig points out, there is coverage which verifies that Saving Aimee has toured nationally. In fact, the NME article Michig listed states that Saving Aimee was at the London Astoria, a venue which NME calls "legendary" in a different piece ([7]). The Metro article Michig provided also mentions that their first studio album will be produced by Justin Hawkins, who, as the ex-singer for the vomitous (but popular) retro-rock group The Darkness, is a figure of considerable significance within the music industry and, I think, negates somewhat the non-notability problems caused by the band's unsigned status.

I don't think I've ever said NME so much in my entire life. Stipend Steve (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in NME is barely a single line in an article about another band, it is not in any way significant coverage required for notability. Please read WP:N (Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.) and then reconsider. What NME thinks of a venue is utterly irrelevant. Having a notable producer (for an album that we cannot source even exists or even might exist) is not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This article has as many reliable references as it possibly can at this stage of the bands career. Removing this article would be completely outrageous and cold hearted. With the state of the music industry today with record sales down across the board, a wave of new bands have started doing it themselves. Respectively gaining legions of fans by themselves with no major label backing. The fact that this band have managed to accomplish what they have with nothing but hard work and constant touring is nothing but respectable.

This year will see the band putting out releases and their debut album. I have also added reliable sources that the band have had reviews in major magazines - NME ([8]) and an article in Kerrang! ([9]) xpedrox (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again see WP:N for info on 'significant coverage', merely being listed as a opening act in a concert review is not good enough for notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm neutral about the article, but in response to xpedrox, I'd like to point out that it's not the job of Wikipedia to support (or attack) the careers of fledgling bands. It's not really useful to argue for retention on the basis of the impact of the article on the band; what we're looking for is the impact of the band on the scene. NME is a good source; the St Albans and Harpenden Review not so much. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i have pointed out the NME article contains a trivial mention at best. It cannot be used as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- The bands myspace page states that they are finishing their debut album with Justin Hawkins and this article from Kerrang! (the worlds biggest selling weekly music magazine) proves it and many more facts. ([10]) Checkmate?

I totally agree with you 'AlexTiefling', there's just no need for this bands wiki article to get deleted! xpedrox (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (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.