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. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Sweeney[edit]

The Trouble with Sweeney (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)

Non-notable band has received only the most passing of coverage in the most local of sources. ^Bongo_matic 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article restorer The nominator's assertions are refuted by the content of the article at the time of nomination, which included citations to full articles/reviews from three major (inter)national music publications. I added a few more references since. Meets WP:MUSIC bullet 1, among others. Chubbles (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sources (after the additional ones added):

• allmusic.com. Database entry. Doesn't assist in establishing notability unless shows chart status.
• popmatters.com. User-contributed article. Doesn't establish notability.
• pitchfork.com. This is the only debatable sources. I submit that the source is insufficient to establish notability (depth of coverage is OK).
• chartattack.com. Not a RS.
• splendidezine.com. Not a RS.
• hybridmagazine.com. Not a RS.
• citypaper.net. Local coverage insufficient to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 22:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such interpretations of these sources would be a significant departure from prior consensuses on the worthiness of popular music websites, and would be considerably stricter than any prior interpretation of WP:MUSIC I have seen. Chubbles (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Allmusic, Popmatters and Pitchfork coverage show that WP:MUSIC is met. I agree with Chubbles' point above; Allmusic and Pitchfork are about as WP:RS as it gets for WP:MUSIC. Thanks --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Add -- D'Anjolell, Richard (8 May 2003), "CHOICE ; WHAT OUR CRITICS SAY", Morning Star -- to Allmusic bio and reviews and Pitchfork and local coverage this band has enough coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant coverage from multiple reliable review sites.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage cited in the article was already sufficient, and I've added refs to another half-dozen album reviews. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:22, 29 April 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.