Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Attractions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:43, 30 October 2024 editMilowent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,661 edits keep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:11, 20 November 2024 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators759,252 edits The Attractions: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser
(15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">
===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This discussion has No consensus being divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and others who advocate a Merge. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=The Attractions}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ]) :{{la|1=The Attractions}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ])
:({{Find sources AFD|title=The Attractions}}) :({{Find sources AFD|title=The Attractions}})
No evidence of notability separate from ]. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page ] (]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC) No evidence of notability separate from ]. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page ] (]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Line 17: Line 22:
*:'''Comment''' I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability. *:'''Comment''' I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.
*:In the same way as how ] doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their ] criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article ] (]) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) *:In the same way as how ] doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their ] criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article ] (]) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. ] (]) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.
*:::The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way ] (]) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::The Attractions were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. ] (]) 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::No - Elvis Costello & The Attractions were. The E Street Band was inducted as a standalone entity, separate from Springsteen's induction. The Attractions were inducted as an extension of Costello. We need to demonstrate individual notability separate from Costello, and this induction doesn't even slightly prove that ] (]) 10:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
* I take your point, ]. Having looked at ] and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under ], I can say that I would not be opposed to a '''merge''' with or '''redirect''' to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. ] (]) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC) * I take your point, ]. Having looked at ] and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under ], I can say that I would not be opposed to a '''merge''' with or '''redirect''' to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. ] (]) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep''': Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -]] 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Mushy Yank--> '''Keep''': Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -]] 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Mushy Yank-->
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
:::D- Aside:@], hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@] (fixed) -]] 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) *'''Keep''': Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': as per Milowent. ] (]) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] ] 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
*'''Keep''': This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the ]. {{tq|They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history}}, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like , clearly show that the GNG has been met. ] </span>]] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.
*:There's no point relying on ] when we have subject-specific guidelines in ] that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello ] (]) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I’m not strongly opposed to a merge, but there is never “no point relying on the GNG”. SNGs are an ''alternative'' route to demonstrating notability, alongside the GNG. You’ll notice that ] #1 ''is'' the GNG. And the band only has to meet one of these criteria, not all of them.
*::The question now is one of ], whether we should keep or merge. I do not see anything at WP:BAND that helps us make that decision, so based on my own judgement I believe that there is more than enough sourced content for a standalone article. Merging would add more clutter to the already long article on Elvis Costello. But reasonable folk may disagree, and to me it’s no big deal either way.
*::Next time, when you’re not actually gunning for the deletion of an article, but simply want a merge, you should start a merge discussion (]) or BOLDly do it yourself rather than come to AfD. You might get less participation that way, but folks will spend much less time arguing about the GNG and NBAND (since deletion isn’t on the table), and much more time discussing which way of organizing the content is best for readers. You might even get ''no'' participation, in which case you can just do it! ] </span>]] 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::I didn't want a merge, I wanted a delete but I've accepted that a merge is more popular than a delete here, and I've no problem with a merge.
*:::The GNG always applies yes, but the SNG gives more specific advice pertinent to this situation.
*:::The short and the long of it is that there is no sigcov about the Attractions as a seperate body from Costello. There's in the references that's specifically about the Attractions as opposed to being an article about Costello that references the Attractions. Even then it's about their work with Costello with no reference at all to Mad About the Wrong Boy, their only independent work. ] (]) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 00:11, 20 November 2024

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. This discussion has No consensus being divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and others who advocate a Merge. Liz 00:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Attractions

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Attractions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.
    In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. 2600:E001:1AD:6400:79E4:6995:B836:A675 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.
    The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    The Attractions were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. Velociraptor888 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    No - Elvis Costello & The Attractions were. The E Street Band was inducted as a standalone entity, separate from Springsteen's induction. The Attractions were inducted as an extension of Costello. We need to demonstrate individual notability separate from Costello, and this induction doesn't even slightly prove that DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the GNG. They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like this, clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.
    There's no point relying on WP:GNG when we have subject-specific guidelines in WP:BAND that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @DeputyBeagle I’m not strongly opposed to a merge, but there is never “no point relying on the GNG”. SNGs are an alternative route to demonstrating notability, alongside the GNG. You’ll notice that WP:BAND #1 is the GNG. And the band only has to meet one of these criteria, not all of them.
    The question now is one of WP:PAGEDECIDE, whether we should keep or merge. I do not see anything at WP:BAND that helps us make that decision, so based on my own judgement I believe that there is more than enough sourced content for a standalone article. Merging would add more clutter to the already long article on Elvis Costello. But reasonable folk may disagree, and to me it’s no big deal either way.
    Next time, when you’re not actually gunning for the deletion of an article, but simply want a merge, you should start a merge discussion (WP:MERGE) or BOLDly do it yourself rather than come to AfD. You might get less participation that way, but folks will spend much less time arguing about the GNG and NBAND (since deletion isn’t on the table), and much more time discussing which way of organizing the content is best for readers. You might even get no participation, in which case you can just do it! Toadspike 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't want a merge, I wanted a delete but I've accepted that a merge is more popular than a delete here, and I've no problem with a merge.
    The GNG always applies yes, but the SNG gives more specific advice pertinent to this situation.
    The short and the long of it is that there is no sigcov about the Attractions as a seperate body from Costello. There's only one article in the references that's specifically about the Attractions as opposed to being an article about Costello that references the Attractions. Even then it's about their work with Costello with no reference at all to Mad About the Wrong Boy, their only independent work. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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.