Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodness (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Goodness (band)

The result was KEEP. Opposition to deletion is overwhelming, sources were presented, and there is no indication that this fails WP or WP:MUSIC guidelines.. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Other than the usual rock band directories, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability during the life of this now defunct group. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The Rolling Stone article is a fairly detailed profile, not a "rock band directory". Apparently nominator didn't bother to do any research before nominating, because there's plenty of additional significant coverage easily found in Google news: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Jfire (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons given above. Since the band recorded a cover version of Electricity, Electricity for Schoolhouse Rock! Rocks, I'm sure that they get some additional bit of press coverage in reviews for that as well. As one reviewer here [9] said "The only [cover] I halfway enjoyed was Electricity, Electricity by a band called Goodness." Might be somewhat trivial, but at least he also said why he had this opinion. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ghits and trivial mentions are not evidence of notability; every touring band gets them. What is needed is substantial content about the band's music and its development; information about sales and billboard listings would be good too - see WP:MUSIC for details of what is required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you consider the Rolling Stone article (link provided in the article before you AfD'ed it) trivial? If you do, why? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As you know, websites like this cannot always be classed as reliable, and have lower thresholds for inclusion of articles that Wikipedia. It is not clear who the author is, what the sources are, whether the article has been peer reviewed or if it was just a publicity piece commission by the band's promoters. I would expect there to be some reviews for a band in the publilc domain, but what little coverage there is seems to me to be trivial in nature. The band cannot inherit notability from its name being published in a magazine; the coverage needs to be substantial and not self-published. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Websites like Rolling Stone? --Maxamegalon2000 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My thought, exactly, Maxamegalon. Gavin: if Rolling Stone is not citable about a rock band, what would be? Are you saying that there are no magazines that are citable on this topic, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Carrie Akre, who fronted Goodness, has been one of the most prominent female vocalists on the Seattle rock scene for over 15 years. She also fronted Hammerbox; she's done background vocals for the likes of Mark Pickerel; the Goodness lineup heavily overlapped the Rockfords, which also included Pearl Jam guitarist Mike McCready. See also Akre's Allmusic bio. She's major enough that any group she fronted for years deserves an article. Further, the band had major-label releases: Lava (which released their first) was an imprint of Atlantic Records; their second album was on Epic. Seems to me that this should more than suffice. Not even vaguely borderline, probably not even in the bottom third of notability for rock band articles on Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As a rule, I would expect that a nominator would make at least a cursory 2-minute Google search before taking up far more of other people's time with a deletion proposal. Was that done? - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Here, by the way, is a rather substantial article from the Seattle Weekly about Akre's decision to go back indie after her problems with major labels. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Preview of Akre playing at Bumbershoot 2000. I think the other names on the list make it clear what league of performer we are talking about. (Sorry that these last 2 examples, found with a quick Google search are for the vocalist rather than her band; "Goodness" is a hard word to search on, and I don't feel like putting in a ton of research time right now, I'm not trying to write an article, just demonstrate notablility). - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Commment I have searched, and could not find any material worth quoting. What is needed are reliable sources that cite non-trivial content about the band itself, but I could find none. Notability cannot be inhertited from the band's record label, management or even the fact that its members have done other stuff or have sucessful solo careers. Self-published sources such as fansites are not reliable. The fact that the band went on tour is not significant, unless it was the lead band and major ticket sales have been reported. If you can find some worthwhile material, add it to the article by all means. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I take it that means you still consider them non-notable. Let's start a work area below to gather evidence that they meet at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • All of that said, if we wanted to merge and redirect to Carrie Akre, I would not object, but that is not how I've ever seen something like this handled. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep They have two major-label albums, members of other notable bands, and they're the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources, as Jmabel (talk · contribs) has clearly highlighted above. Therefore, I think that they pass WP:MUSIC quite easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is this open to debate? Two albums with major labels exactly fulfils WP:MUSIC #5, making this band clearly and unabiguously notable per guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, mentioned in a major magazine (Rolling Stone) plus individual notability of band members. Also signed to a major label. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MUSIC criteria
  • C1: subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent and reliable
    • Abovementioned Rolling Stone article
    • Goodness on AllMusic
  • C2: charted hit on any national music chart.
  • C3: record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  • C4: national or international concert tour
  • C5: two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels
    • Album on Epic, album on Atlantic
      • I would think that would settle the matter - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • C6: At least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable
  • C7: Most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city
  • C8: Nominated for a major music award
  • C9: Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  • C10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.
    • "Electricity" for the Schoolhouse Rock tribute
  • C11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  • C12: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
  • Keep Pretty clearly notable, I think. Maxamegalon2000 06:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this? The nominator seems to be alone on this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 30 March 2008 (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.