Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinatown (band)

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. Good show from Michig for finding sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown (band) (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)

Article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no solid reliable source coverage. The closest thing to a solid notability claim here is that a more notable band recorded a cover of one of their songs, and it's sourced to a dead link of a Q&A interview in which the band were speaking about themselves -- but the only other sources present here are a discogs.com entry (which is not a notability-assisting source) and their own Bandcamp, and on a Google search the only other thing I can find is a single article about their breakup in Montreal's local alt-weekly (which isn't nothing, but it also isn't enough all by itself to get them over NMUSIC #1 as the article's only acceptable source.) In reality, lead singer Félix Dyotte has a much stronger notability claim as a solo artist after the band broke up than the band actually has as a band -- so he would qualify to get article about him, which could briefly mention and discuss the band, but the band itself doesn't really have any strong basis for its own standalone article separately from that. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's drummer. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak Delete - Note how the article says that Chinatown was formed in 2006, but one of their songs was covered by the Stills in 2004! In any case, Bearcat as usual has done the legwork on this nomination and I am convinced that the band has achieved little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of gig schedules and other small matters in local media. Also note that there are several other bands with the same name in fields from extreme metal to wedding songs, which surely doesn't help them or us. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that as well, but was having trouble figuring it out last night, so I opted to not say anything about it until I could say something properly authoritative. (The thing about a notability claim, of course, being that it's entirely possible to make a false or inaccurate one — it has to be true to get an article kept, obviously, but people regularly try to break our rules by making deceptive claims in the hopes that we won't notice the inaccuracy.) At any rate, I've found the explanation: the song's songwriting credit is to this band's keyboardist, but he apparently wrote the song in 2002 for a solo album he released before Chinatown existed, the Stills recorded it in 2004 as claimed, and then Chinatown recorded their own new version of it eight years after that. So the claim's not entirely false, because the song is connected to a band member, but it is definitely misrepresenting the actual story and thus doesn't actually count as a notability claim for Chinatown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, great job with the research! If this band article somehow survives the AfD process, I will straighten out the text on the Stills cover myself. Otherwise, I also noticed your point on singer Félix Dyotte -- if he someday gets his own article, this band can be briefly mentioned as part of his forgotten early history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough coverage of the band to establish notability ([1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), and also enough coverage of Dyotte's solo career for an article on him ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), and these are from far from extensive searches. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a few of those sources on Chinatown during my search so I have respectively changed my vote above to "Weak Delete." That's because (thanks to some imperfect help from Google Translate) I am still not convinced that those various sources rise beyond routine coverage in which the band receives a basic intro to promote a gig, while the album reviews don't get beyond basic existence of the release. These happened fairly often but none are very deep. But once again I would support an article for the singer if anyone ever creates it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A band does not get over WP:NMUSIC just because some local coverage exists in their own hometown media, if there's no evidence that they ever accomplished anything bigger than just playing the local bar scene. And Dyotte qualifying for a separate standalone BLP, which I admitted right off the top that he does, is quite a separate matter from whether the band was ever notable as a band or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage I identified isn't all from Montreal. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one article is from outside Montreal itself, but is still from another city within the same province, and it verifies nothing about them that would pass any NMUSIC criterion. If you're going for "notable because they toured", then NMUSIC requires a full-fledged national tour, not just evidence that they played one show outside their own hometown but still in the same province. Quite literally the only serious basis for notability here is Félix Dyotte himself — and that's a reason for a BLP of Dyotte, not a reason for an article about a band whose only serious notability claim is that Félix Dyotte was in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Michig mentioned the singer's notability as a side matter in relation to previous comments on a "what if" article for him, and is not using that as proof of the band's notability. Otherwise, Michig argues that the found articles on the band are significant and reliable, while Bearcat and myself argue the opposite. This basic disagreement can be built upon by additional voters if any more stop by. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Michig has found plenty of coverage, the concerns expressed above are valid but moot considering the coverage. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage Michig found (a) is almost entirely the local coverage that any band on a city's local bar scene would routinely be expected to receive in their local media without necessarily qualifying for a Wikipedia article on that basis in and of itself, and the minimal amount of outside-Montreal coverage he found doesn't support any stronger notability claim; and (b) verifies nothing about them that would constitute a genuine notability claim for a band besides "a guy who went on to become a notable solo artist in his own right after they broke up was in it". NMUSIC requires two independently notable members, not just one, before "had independently notable members" counts as a notability claim for a band; and it requires a full national tour, not just cursory verification that they played one show outside their own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think WP:ROUTINE applies to music articles since the guideline page is about events. The sources presented by Michig are secondary, reliable, non-trivial and independent of the topic. It doesn't matter if they are local coverage or not. They still meet the band criteria (criterion #1 of WP:BAND). KingAndGod 18:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE explicitly states, right in its own text, that it does not only apply to events themselves, but also speaks directly to the matter of whether coverage of certain types of events assists in establishing the BLP notability of people involved in those events. Its own stated examples include things like wedding and death notices, crime reports, accidents, viral phenomena and "local person wins local award", that apply to people. So local coverage of a local band who never accomplished anything noteworthy beyond the local does fall under ROUTINE, and does not establish permanent encyclopedic notability — if all we had to do to make an article keepable was show that some local coverage in the subject's own hometown exists, but nothing stated in that coverage actually had to constitute a noteworthy distinction, then we would have to start keeping articles about bands who got local coverage for playing their local pub, but never actually released any recorded music at all. Exactly none of the sources verify anything about the band that would be expected to get them coverage in an encyclopedia, besides "the lead singer went on to achieve notability as a solo artist after the band broke up". Again, the band can be mentioned in a BLP of Dyotte, if and when somebody takes on creating one — but nothing stated here, and nothing that can be added to it, makes the band independently notable as a separate topic from Dyotte. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As I said I would do far above, I have straightened out the article's text on the song "Retour à Vega" which will help if the article survives this AfD. I have been watching this debate with great interest and my vote has already been recorded, but at this late date I will humbly add that quantity of sources is not the same as quality. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 2 April 2018 (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.