Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Box Social

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Box Social (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The "notable press" listed in this article are the only sources, and pretty much all of them are the brief articles that local newspapers right up when a band is playing a concert, aka routine coverage. Most hilariously, the article brags that they have sold less than 2000 CDs. The band broke up 13 years ago, so no chance that this will change. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, run of the mill coverage. I'm not seeing notability here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the references seem to have been misrepresented as there are a number of independent reviews of their albums or eps such as in the music site Independent Clauses rather than just local news events listings, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed all of the sources in the article (and wasn't able to find more probably because the links are dead) and I saw all of them as trivial, including the Independent Clauses write-up, which is a ridiculously short write-up in what appears to be a blog about "under-appreciated music" (their words). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from one interview the sources are all reviews of their albums or eps so are independent criticism from music sources and news sources Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up severely, and some of the "Notable Press" items could be converted to footnotes. But I agree with Atlantic306 above, in that independent album reviews help demonstrate sufficient media coverage, and the band got a few media profiles while on tour. Enough for a basic stub article, but the present article's fancruft (or maybe selfcruft) can be whacked by a good 80%. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:36, 18 May 2021 (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.