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. --jonny-mt 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irritant (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an unsigned group who has since split up. Also, they only released two singles (both self-released), and no albums. The only alleged claim to notability is the fact that the group's second and final single charted at no. 70 on the UK singles charts, and the source given for this doesn't actually verify this. I really question whether this can be deemed a "charted hit" under WP:MUSIC's notability criteria - this is down to interpretation of the vague criteria (far as I am concerned, no. 70 is in no way or shape a hit), which needs to be more specific. If editors deem that this band is noteworthy due to having a track hitting no. 70, then I propose the WP:MUSIC guidelines be tightened up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Number 70 is a minor hit, though a fair achievement for an unsigned band, but borderline if that was the only claim to notability. There appears, however, to be sufficient coverage, including two BBC articles, to satisfy notability criteria. A better reference would be preferable to confirm the chart hit, but it's reported in several different places, so there seems no reason to doubt it.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 & WP:MUSIC#C2.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they pass C2 is according to interpretation, such is the vagueness of the guidelines. Also, by proxy, should this article be kept, this AFD is saying that everyone who has ever had a UK top 100 single is worthy of a Wikipedia article (which is total rubbish). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. This discussion is purely about Irritant. Any other band would need to be considered on their own merits.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this AFD would be saying just that, so don't say it would not be - you're talking total horseshit Michig. Don't tell me what a discussion is about - I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be frank. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... having a bad day? What's with the uncivil tone? I expect better from an editor as experienced as yourself. Michig is quite right here. An unsigned and independent band might be notable for reaching #70 on a music chart. That might not be the case for a band or artist that is signed to a major label. It's all relative and editors are not bound by precedent by this or any other AFD. The world is not going to end if this article is kept on wikipedia so chill out and relax. --Bardin (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I sincerely hope this appalling behaviour is out of character, but putting that aside for a moment, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing, which is basically the crux of your argument. As I pointed out, a number 70 hit is quite significant for an unsigned band, and the significant coverage in reliable sources was also a factor in my view that the article should be kept. A similar article without such coverage may need to be treated differently. I am perfectly entitled to disagree with you (whilst remaining civil)- if you can't deal with that without this sort of behaviour perhaps you're working on the wrong project.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (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.