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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Circle of Stars[edit]

Disney Channel Circle of Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not an actual recording group; it is an infrequent gathering of musicians (for example, Artists Stand Up to Cancer). They have not released any albums, and neither of their two recorded songs have charted, a violation of WP:BAND. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am disagreeing with the nominators statements indicating a lack of notability. Records have been released: Disneymania 2, Disneymania 4, DisneyRemixMania, The Lion King (soundtrack), and Cinderella (soundtrack). Charting into the top 1-3 slots for "Top Kids Audio". All of this is clearly stated in the article. My understanding of WP:BAND, 10 specifically stands out "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable". I believe they meet several other criteria as well. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction - those are chart positions for the albums that their songs appeared on. And they weren't studio albums from the group; they were soundtracks that featured numerous artists. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Turlo Loman. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator violates WP:BAND--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is hard to understand but the group seems to be notable enough. I mean Disney is big! Northwestgnome (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The group, however, is not. No charted singles, no studio albums... and you still want to keep this? Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agree with Turo Loman.Spears154 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do explain why, when I have already called him out on how all of his points are invalid. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Turlo Loman accurately cites guideline, and subject is something reasonable people could plausibly want to find information about. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The group is about as notable as the Artists Stand Up to Cancer. I do agree with you that it is something people might want to find information to, but they are at this point not worthy of an article. As ASUtC is a redirect to "Just Stand Up!," perhaps information about the group can be merged into The Lion King (soundtrack) and Cinderella (soundtrack), especially as they had a different line-up on both of their songs. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Turlo Lomon Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Turlo Lomon explained it well and has valid reasons to keep this page. The criteria of WP:BAND is definitely met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPOLMike (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is met you say? Can you prove it, please?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Turlo Lomon's explanation was flawed the minute he discussed how soundtracks the group appeared on - not their studio albums (which they don't even have) or singles - charted. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, they "performed music for a work of media that is notable", namely the Cinderella and Lion King soundtracks. Although that criterion goes on to say "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article," since there are multiple soundtracks they contributed to and there is more to say about them, this wouldn't work. And in any case, that would be a merge, not a deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a merge - see above. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge discussion doesn't require AfD. But a merge still wouldn't work here, since they significantly contributed to at least two soundtracks. So the article could not be appropriately be merged into either one. Rlendog (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, a merge wasn't my original suggestion. Secondly, a merge would probably work well, especially since the line-up was significantly different on both of their soundtrack appearances. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:42, 29 July 2009 (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.