Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Venture (music)

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 delete - only assertion of notability was being signed to Enja - when they actually were not. Neil ╦ 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Venture (music)

My prod was contested because I didn't do research when I prod'd it. I shouldn't have to do research. The article didn't, and still doesn't, indicate whty the group is notable. It simply states it existed, what the current status is, and what albums were released. It doesn't indicate sales of albums so we know whether or not they sold well or sat on the shelfs. We don't know if they won any awards, had sold out concerts, etc. In short, we don't know if they were local favorites at the pubs or sold out at arenas or something in between. Only source listed is their own website. This article fails on many levels. Postcard Cathy 03:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two releases on Enja Records is enough for notability according to WP:MUSIC (criteria 5). More information would always be nice, but lack of information is not reason to delete an article, it's reason to expand an article. Capmango 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above -- Enja Records appears to be a notable label (I'm almost 100% certain that a 36-year-old label is very notable), and this band has had two albums on it, thus passing criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 11:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now per rewrite -- no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that they might have recorded the albums but if they sat on the shelfs - or even possibly sat in the discount bins - and never sold, I don't care what record label they were on - it was an unsuccessful band. Sales are more notable than recordings. Add to it respect from others in the music industry. None of that is indicated here. Postcard Cathy

PS Don't forget the only source is their own website. AFAIK, you need outside sources as well.

Trying to clean-up, etc. the article and found that the discography listed was for a different Joint Venture. So the group in this AfD does not have any releases on Enja. Precious Roy 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even that doesn't argue for deletion. Apart from the discography, there's only one paragraph; if it's about the wrong band, it should be replaced by a paragraph about the right band. Capmango 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per nom. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NawlinWiki 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources indicating notability, the albums aren't on Enja Records after all. NawlinWiki 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND Giggy _U^CP 04:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media mentions Corpx 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capmango and Ten Pound Hammer. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets band due to multiple records on a notable label, and also as the previous band of notable musician, Götz Widmann (who has an article in two other languages). John Vandenberg 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which notable label is that? And WP:BAND suggests using redirects for "early bands". Precious Roy 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring out the label. Ahuga appears to be Widmann's own label[1] and doesnt appear to have many other artists on the books[2][3]. I dont think the suggestion to redirect for "early bands" applies here, as this duo was together for seven years and produced at least five albums which are still available for sale today[4], and at least one was reissued in 2005. Note that this article exists on the German and French Wikipedia as well. A proper merge to Götz Widmann would a reasonable outcome. John Vandenberg 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by article (external links are to the band's own site or broken) EyeSerene^TALK 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fixed the All Music Guide link (the template appears to be broken). Precious Roy 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All music guide is a directory. Being listed there does not grant notability Corpx 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I neither stated nor implied that it did. I was merely replying to user:EyeSerene's comment that the link was broken. Precious Roy 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:RS. Also delete related article Götz Widmann for the same reasons. Caknuck 14:07, 13 July 2007 (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.