Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Attractions

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 Read! Talk! 00:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Attractions

[Hide this box] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The Attractions were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. Velociraptor888 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 [Talk] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 [Talk] 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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 Read! Talk! 00:41, 13 November 2024 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Attractions