Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cimorelli

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. Consensus is to keep. Articles on the individual members have been deleted as per separate AFD, and redirected here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cimorelli

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band is more than a garage band, but falls short of Wikipedia's music notability guidelines. WP:BAND states the following requirement for the notability of a band: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The article currently has links to two references -- in the Sacramento Magazine, and in the Malibu Times. The Sacramento Magazine article is just a three-line blurb, and constitutes trivial coverage. The Malibu Times article gives the band more significant coverage, comparing the band to the Jackson 5!! Considering that I cannot find any other independent sources that give this band even trivial coverage, I don't think that the above music notability guideline has been met. NJ Wine (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with the nom. One vanity press-ish article (clearly brimming with puffery) isn't enough to establish notability. Can't find any other usable sources. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and in your nomination notice to delete Lisa Cimorelli you said, the band is notable but she's not. It's nice to agree, and it's nice to have a fulcrum upon which you can apply leverage, but you have to choose. Which is it? Anarchangel (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as someone who routinely removes the repeatedly-placed puffery, unsourced BLP and other content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia from this article. The nom is spot-on. I have a theory that most of this pablum is placed by this group's mother who is their agent/PR and her buddies. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean puffery as in a 'Band member' section? I expected even deletionists to know how to make one of those. But just go back to deleting things. I did it for you. It would be great if you knew how to find AllMusic and Discogs as well, but I will not be holding my breath. Anarchangel (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, I agree with you that the AllMusic site should not have been deleted, but I'm thinking that it was an accident. What is not accidental has been the amount of crap added over time to this article, and the individual articles about the sisters. Besides what Toddst1 and other editors have removed, I this week removed information about the height and favorite foods of the band members. How is that appropriate for an encyclopedia?

Comment This non-notable band also has articles on 6 foreign Wikipedia sites. NJ Wine (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cimorelli on German Wikipedia

Cimorelli on French Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Spanish Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Finnish Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Dutch Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Turkish Wikipedia

That's unfortunate but shouldn't sway the outcome of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think NJ Wine was suggesting something needs to be done about those articles; unfortunately that's beyond our mandate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1] and [2] offer nontrivial coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article probably originated as an early attempt at promotion (which is against WP rules by the way) but it looks like they are beginning to attract some mainstream notice beyond social networking. The article might now be acceptable as a stub, helped by the sources found by King of Hearts above. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'trivial', 'puffery' and 'pablum' ad nauseum would go down a little better if any of the Delete voters had bothered looking at the Lowest Common Denominator of all music sources, AllMusic, and had not deleted a source that cited the 'Acapella' claim. I won't buy the argument that they are not under obligation to do anything, either; there is ONE thing that WP editors have to do, and that is to not screw things up. A band members section that tells you things you can figure out by doing simple math is still better than none, and removing citations is obviously detrimental. Anarchangel (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, AllMusic is not considered an reliable source.[3] We can use it as a source of biographical information, but not to support a claim of notability. NJ Wine (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - They have been covered by Perez Hilton [4], Ryan Seacrest several times here's just a few [5] [6] [7], covered by the Billboard 100 [8], they have their own Album released including EP's [9], been mentioned in the M Magazine several times [10], they charted on the Billboard's Social 50 [11], and they were also covered by a news network in the Philippines [12]. So I think they have received PLENTY of coverage JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:06, 7 June 2012 (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.