Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Denim (band)

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn, sources established on article talk page. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Denim (band)

White Denim (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also included in this nomination:

• Let's Talk About It EP

Just barely doesn't make the cut for WP:BAND. They did get a mention on the Rolling Stone web site but it was on an editor's blog and was just a mention of the band and some trivia about them. They have only released one EP, which was self released and there's no suggestion it charted. No significant secondary source coverage other than trivial mentions. Redfarmer (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a borderline case for whether the coverage is "significant", but I'm going to fall on the keep side for the band, and the merge side for the album. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - User Redfarmer is erroneous in his claim that the Rolling Stone article merely mentions band trivia. In the online version, this is true, but the actual printed article on page 26 of Issue 1045, there is a more detailed history of the band, and also news/information of their EP in question. (Fulmerg (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

If this band has actually been covered in the print version of the magazine - which I'll try to check Monday at work, since we should have that issue there - my keep vote becomes substantially stronger. Still vote to merge the album, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted, the coverage was on a Rolling Stone blog, which are not usually covered in the print version. It's kind of their version of a podcast. If you are able to find an article, however, I will consider withdrawing the nomination. Redfarmer (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Received plenty of coverage - I don't have time to add them to the article now, but I've found these: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]--Michig (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion 1.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:09, 2 February 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.