Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shadow Project

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Project

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

no indication of meeting WP:BAND. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. References provided are mostly not independent or not significant. Unsupported claims of regular BBC Radio 1 airtime on a show about unsigned bands but ref to a tracklist only support a single play. Google searches not showing significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well this at least is significant coverage in a reliable source. If any more can be found we may have enough to merit an article. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how reliable a source that is. Google hits run out around 700, and the about link on the page is to a wiki page with lots of warnings on it. noq (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source. They simply link to a (poor) Wikipedia article from their 'About' link. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No direct links, but if you search - here and - here you will find more notable reviews. There are also more BBC articles - here, - here and - here. The use of their music in a TV commercial is also notable. The coverage of their record in China also suggests that they are notable. User:Loveofanorchestra2012 (User talk:Loveofanorchestra2012) 06:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC links above are purely local news and radio coverage. wombatwombat appears to just cover a single venue and the repeat fanzine, is a copy of B-side which provides local music coverage. noq (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More than just a garage band, but doesn't meet notability of music guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Whilst no source to confirm at present, the use of music by Sky TV would appear to meet criterion 10 and 12 of the notability of music guidelines. Furthermore, the top 100 charting of a record meets guideline 2.Loveofanorchestra2012 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drowned in sounds top 100 would not meet WP:CHARTS. And without a source your first point does not apply. And I am struggling to see how criterion 12 would apply. noq (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am referring to the Top 100 German album chart. Criterion 12 would apply on the grounds that the music is licensed to Sky for use in a repeating TV commercial. Loveofanorchestra2012 (talk) 11.11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment criteria 12 is "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." - being background music on an ad does not meet that. Do you have a source for them having charted in Germany - the article is not clear that that is the claim. noq (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 04:55, 31 May 2012 (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.