Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saving Aimee (3rd 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. LFaraone 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Aimee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable band, with no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources either for the group, their releases or their UK tour. The claim that one single charted at #125 is a bit hard to verify as the Official UK singles chart only lists to 100. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Released only one album, one that didn't noticeably chart. Only working ref appears to have been from a self-produced press release. While there appear to be many ghits, the vast majority are for an unrelated musical of the same name. Might also need to include the apparently non-notable album with this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage identified in previous AfDs is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has been put to the test previously several times, and notability is not temporary. THIS from the large circulation music mag Kerrang! gets the band about 3/4 over the notability bar, it would seem. THIS from the St. Albans & Harpenden Review should be good for the other 1/4. THIS from Metro should be enough to satisfy those who look for at least 3 sources for a WP:GNG pass. There are other sources cited in the two previous deletion nominations (2007, 2009), both of which ended up as KEEP. So let's put this to rest, shall we? Carrite (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerrang 'article' is nothing more than promotional quicky of them talking about themselves (failing WP:BAND), the St. Albans article is a 'local boys make good' article that doesn't even mention them by name until the second paragraph. This leaves the Metro article which is nothing more than 'these guys are playing locally tonight' article. Not one critical review of the band or their output among them. Yes, I have looked at the previous AFDs and see the same passing-mention after passing-mention presented as reliable sources. The only thing these sources establish is that a band of that name exists. I have no idea how those previous AFDs were closed as Keeps. In my opinion a band with no notable output and nothing notable enough about their live shows to garner comment just doesn't pass the test. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above, notabilty is not temporary, but were they even notable back in the day? Well, apparently Milty and myself think not, from Wikipedia:NTEMP "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.", in this case read group instead of person, IMHO they had no notability back then (per Milty, a couple of mentions and "we are touring wow") and they are not an ongoing concern so this is like a memento mori. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This should probably be deleted as it fails the "spirit of the law" of notability. This is not a notable group. The single is obviously not notable as it did not make the national chart. The gigs and supporting acts are not notable (even David Brent can claim he shared the stage with Texas). The producer credits on the album are irrelevant. However, the technical "letter of the law" of notability would suggest it stays. The articles sound pretty trivial but there were enough and in significant enough publications to meet notability (if the NME, Kerrang and Metro can actually be evidenced). The playlist rotation on BBC Radio, though, if it can actually be evidenced in some way, does fully appear to meet notability criteria. Silverwood (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2013 (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.