Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shircago

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 of the nomination was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC (no label, no national tours, only assertion is an article accessable only by paid subscription). Delete. --InShaneee 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music--Nick Y. 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that they have a CD (not sure what "label" means in these modern times of self-published artists), and that the article referred to in the Chicago Tribune did appear in the print version of the paper (I saw it the day it came out). They also perform regularly in the Chicago area. Notability is sometimes a judgement call, but given these facts, and that they are one of the few representatives of A Capella Jewish pop, I think them notable enough to not delete. --kfogel 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:User's 14th edit. --InShaneee 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why wikipedia has to become the myspace page for every band— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.117.8 (talk • contribs)

Shircago is a professional group of a capella musicians with great voices (I'm a speech pathologist with specialty in voice and disorders). Shircago has existed for several years and has recently begun distribution of their CD at a reputable retail store, Tower records. Those who work for Wikipedia obviously have not bought the CD nor realize that Shircago is one of the few worthy young American Jewish pop artists. The type of music they play has been dying, similar to the Shadow Play in China. It is important for the Jewish people to keep that music alive. And Shircago obviously has the right qualifications given that the Jewish Community of Chicago knows the name of the group, and members look forward to attending their concerts - most recently at the Jewish Folk Festival in Chicago. Wikipedia would be making a mistake by deleting this reputable group from their Encyclopedia. Please do NOT DELETE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini-K (talk • contribs)

It isn't a MySpace page. The band has existed for 10 years and is known to audiences in Chicagoland and beyond. The group is a representative of an important up-and-coming expression of religious music in a genre that is accessible to all ages, so the proper course of action is to not delete. --Wolverine94 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Wolverine 94, 4:38pm CDT, 11 Jul 06[reply]

I would be more convinced that this isn't a MySpace page if that huge picture wasn't emblazoned across the top of the article. The picture doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value and probably is why this is even an issue. Delete the picture, save the text. (University of Chicago Alum who has actually seen the group in concert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.167 (talk • contribs)

Why would photographs be inappropriate here, yet appropriate on (say) Barbara Bush's entry? Do the latter add something of "encylopedic value" while the former somehow do not? I think the photo is quite appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, InShaneee 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my eyes notable. A word for everyone else: "when in doubt, KEEP". -- Librarianofages 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As inclusionists always remind us, notability is not officially a criterion for deletion, so I'm not sure why you're using it as an argument to keep... — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails wikipedia criteria for musical notability: WP:Music. Maybe the author could look at the criteria and scrounge up some verifiable tidbit that meets the requirements. (You only need one). --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no evidence, in the article or otherwise, that this band meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standards for notability. If WP:MUSIC is reached by changes to the article prior to closure, please consider my 'vote' then changed to keep. — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hey kids! When in doubt, remember WP:V/if not already/submit to AFD/something something-ee!! Bwithh 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: does have 1,050 Google hits and one article in the Chicago Tribune, but still fails WP:MUSIC. Bwitth: perhaps a career as a poet is not the way to go... --David.Mestel 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<:_( Bwithh 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just barely fails WP:MUSIC. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Nothing I can see on Allmusic, One unlabelled CD on amazon, appears to be a local group with only self published music --Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and as apparent vanity. WilyD 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there may be a bit of vanity in the motivation does not automatically disquality this entry. I think the attention this group gets in the Chicagoland area and beyond puts it above your typical small band. They have been featured in one of the largest U.S. newspapers for being part of a newer movement of more ethno-religious-popular music (I read the Chicago Tribune article with interest). I think stumbling on entries like these is what keeps Wikipedia so interesting (although again, would not like to see every 'boy band' included). Since there is more than a little doubt and debate, I would certainly keep this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.56.21 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:Vanity and review that the article fails WP:Music. If there's a an obvious rule of thumb one can apply , it's that articles about bands written by the members invariably turn out to fail WP:Music, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information et al. Please also see Wikipedia is not a democracy and recognise that there are no real rationals advanced here for keeping the article, thus there is no doubt it needs to be deleted. Please do not construe my above comments to indicate that band members cannot work on their bands' page (I myself have edited an article about a co-worker of mine) but just that as an empiricist, I am forced to conclude when a band starts an article about themselves, it turns out the band is unencyclopaedic, the objections of David Hume not withstanding. WilyD 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, but if someone can find another article on them besides the Tribune one, then I'd change it to keep. --PresN 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per David.Mestel. -Tapir Terrific 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, just not notable. "Semi-professional" and "being distributed at Tower Records" translates into "four people's weekend side-project, who are pretty good singers, and who talked the assistant manager at Tower Records into putting a stack of CD's by the register". --Aguerriero (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The world has millions of bands; since nobody has the time or inclination to write articles on all of them, we must necessarily be either selective or biased in our coverage. I hate bias, so I'll choose "selective", and since this band does not meet the arbitrary selection criteria on which we have achieved a broad consensus, I must therefore vote to delete it. (Note how notability does not enter my argument!) — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My interpretation of the articles I found was that this was a band made up of students at the University of Chicago - hence the frequent changes of members, number of members and style. I wish them luck, but elsewhere. --Richhoncho 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The group is not comprised of any students at the University of Chicago and has featured the same membership for four years. There was also an article about the group in the September 2002 edition of the JUF News, and the group was mentioned in another Tribune article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine94 (talk • contribs)

Delete. It simply fails the notability standards for musicians. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:46, 13 July 2006 (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.