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. The article has been improved during discussion, causing the nominator to lean towards keep. Another of the delete !voters could accept a keep, leaving only one firm delete !vote, so consensus appears to be keep. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrates Royale (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)

Existing references are trivial mentions. No indication that the group meets WP:BAND nor WP:GNG - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original editor has added several additional sources. The majority of these are again trivial mentions just listing the band name in passing on a list of acts, or list of their songs (no actual coverage), list of winner of a non-notable award, etc. One of the sources gives some coverage to one of the members, but notability isn't inherited. There are two sources of possible worth. Capital Gazette has an article; but it reads as a press release advertising an event so I don't believe it would help in meeting the threshold. The second by Rambles provides okay coverage, but WP:BAND specifically requires subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works (emphasis added), so I don't believe this is enough as yet. As a result, I believe the article is at best still a weak delete. I would say "not yet", but the band aparently disbanded earlier this year (except for potential reunion gigs) so additional coverage is likely to be minimal if existant at all. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that GazetteNet and Traditions, a radio program covering folk music would make multiple sources. But I would also argue that the multiple "trivial" references indicate that this group was a well-known and therefore notable part of the folk music community, at least in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. area. Some of those references are ads for businesses hoping to capitalize on the group's popularity. Another is for a weekly, pirate-themed radio show that credits the group as inspiring the interest that led to the eventual premise of the program. There were also other reviews from rambles.net, regarding other albums.

Cybotik (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link that has been provided to WP:BAND. If you disagree with the notability guideline as currently written, the place to try to get it changed is on the talk page for that guideline at WT:BAND (or at one of the related WikiProject pages listed on that talk page), not in this deletion discussion.

Most of the added refs are trivial mentions that serve no purpose in meeting that guideline, nor in directly supporting text in the article, so should just be removed to eliminate the clutter. However, as I said, the Rambles article appears to provide okay coverage, and now the addition of the GazetteNet article would also be good coverage - so meeting the guideline of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" appears it now may be met.

This AfD should be allowed to run its course; but given those two sources, I believe it has a good chance of being closed as a keep or at least a weak keep. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I was able an interview in the Baltimore Sun with the group's violinist ([1]), and I found an article in CMJ which has a passing mention of them ([2]). The Cecil News has a mention of them in an article as well ([3]). There's some stuff out there but it is really, really trivial. I'd have to say weak delete on the face of it, but I could see where someone would vote keep instead. Nomader (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is my article. While the subject of this article may be light on media coverage, this entire genre of music and the performers of this genre will always suffer that fate. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should be a comprehensive font of information, rather than simply a listing of what's popular. Especially when regarding any form of art, the criteria for determining notability should not be based on the number of critics who chose to write about it. I have no connection to this group, nor have I ever even met them. But I have noticed that Wikipedia has little information on forms and styles of music that do not receive a lot of attention. If anyone should go looking for these forms of music, Wikipedia fails them. This particular group had thirty years of musical success. They have fans all over the country. Surely, press coverage is not the only measure of notability. Cybotik (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's particularly nothing convincing especially from the sources and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (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.