This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes and 1 "redirect". Several factual claims and counter-claims were made during this discussion but were never resolved. In particular, is this the musical equivalent of a vanity press which is merely sold through Amazon? They were also never evaluated against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines.
Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now. If the factual questions can be addressed, it may be appropriate to consider a renomination without prejudice. Rossami(talk) 01:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be another non notable band. When you have a name like "Sullivan" you get a hell of alot of google hits to wade through, no matter how you try to limit the search. I cannot find anything indicating they have even released an album, so I'm thinking this is sort of band vanity (though they are not very vain if this is all they can say about themselves). In any case it is a substub that does not establish notability. Delete it unless the article is expanded and can establish this band as some notable entity. -R. fiend 00:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article offers no evidence of encyclopedic content.Wyss 00:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. I don't think what I've done violates policy; I added a section to Emo called "Emo bands" and added this band to that section; I would suggest converting this to a redirect to the Emo article. Why did I do this? If this gets deleted, that sets a precedent for hundreds of similiar stubs to be deleted in the band, book, song, album, ... categories. It is much preferred to merge the content over deleting it. Courtland 01:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
Keep for passing notability by narrow margin, per Starblind. Having it merged somewhere is also acceptable. Kappa 01:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How do we know this isn't some high school band? Gamaliel 05:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If their CD is on Amazon, they must be a reasonably notable high school band. Kappa 12:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is this the same band? How do we know that? Gamaliel 17:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Spurious claims of a CD on Amazon aside, this article isn't even a useful start. If this goes, the mention on Emo should probably go too. Chris 16:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\talk 17:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, anyone care to link to the Amazon item? None of the 214 (!) matches on Amazon under "music" for sullivan are this band. Chris 18:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the band is so notable that their name isn't even spelt properly on the listing. The album has sold so many copies that even the Amazon sales rank can't keep track of where it is ... Chris 21:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and the title seems to be incomplete. Still, that might be Amazon's fault, I've seen lots of messed-up item listings on there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Concurring with Andrew Lenahan, you cannot fault the band for a typographical error made on amazon.com. It goes without question that it will be corrected eventually. --GRider\talk 22:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. Author of a book listed on Amazon outside the top 100,000, out. Artist of an album listed on Amazon outside the top 100,000, in. If anything, I'd say that any author that gets published is more notable than a pub-and-club band that has to publish for themselves, and we've seen what happens to authors of low-sales published works. If this is kept, you risk setting a very dangerous precedent. Chris 02:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 02:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable band. Radiant! 18:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if it makes any difference to anyone, it should be noted that their album is actually an EP, so it probably has only a few songs on it. I consider this slightly less notable than having a full length album, but this is sort of up to people's personal criteria. I'm less opposed to keeping this now that I know they have at least something released other than some sort of mp3 downlaod or a CD-R, but especially given this isn't a full album I am not changing my vote now. -R. fiend 23:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Having seen them live, they're most certainly worthy of an article. There's plenty of information about them; it just seems to me someone started the article and has yet to come back and expand it.Ridethefire3211 2005-03-14 T 16:17 EST
"I've seen them live" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 02:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I realize this; what I meant was that they are a great band, nothing like what was said of them above. My apologies for not conforming to your perfection. Let it go. Ridethefire3211 11:00 EST, 19 Mar 2005.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.