Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla Mood

:{{la|Vanilla Mood}} ([{{fullurl:Vanilla Mood|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla Mood}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unnotable band. CSD removed as it has two "albums" under a notable label, however the albums are "mini" albums, not full albums, and contain only a few tracks either (basically a max-single). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - As much as I despise this point in the WP:BAND policy, it's there, agreed upon (until it's hopefully change), and must be followed. Point 5 states, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." Vanilla Mood is under Avex Group which is notable and has produced two records under that label. While, like I said, I don't agree with this policy point (for exact cases like this), that's the policy and I'm stickin' to it. As for the "mini-album" issue, thefreedictionary.com defines an album as, "one or more recordings issued together." It's more than one song and therefore an album.OlYeller^Talktome 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep - OlYeller21 said it best. That clause in WP:MUSIC is used to create walled gardens where non-notable bands are promoted on Wikipedia simply because they release non-notable albums trough record companies that have just one or two notable artists (in turn claiming notability because of said artists). The policy is broken there, and needs fixing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep as well, per WP:MUSIC#C5 (p.s. OlYeller21, have you got a ref for that?). I personally don't believe the policy of broken, since any article on a record label who's only claim is a couple of {{LinkColor|#002BB8|blue linked}} bands fails the WP:CORP criteria; "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". AfD the label, and the walled garden comes crashing down. IMHO of course.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::I don't have a ref for the notability of Avex Group if that's what you're asking. I doubted the labels notability but I guess I'm following the rules again by assuming its notable until an AfD finds otherwise. This probably isn't the place to say this but I think that every band, album, song, artist, etc. should have to prove notability just like everything else, by showing coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I guess that's where I see the policy being broken. I don't care if Sony has a band under their label. If they don't prove notability through coverage etc., they aren't notable. Just my opinion. I should probably take it to the discussion on the policy. OlYeller^Talktome 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Comment Avex Group is one of the biggest labels in Japan, having published some of the best-selling artists of recent decades and many with international recognition (such as Ayumi Hamasaki, the pillows, Namie Amuro, Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra and so on). The walled garden argument is, to say the least, a bit misplaced here. As for the group in question, articles and sources are harder to find because of the language barrier and seeming barrenness of Japanese music journalism but if I find anything I'll bring it up. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

::I'd just like to support and add to Esradekan's comment on walled gardens falling. The criteria states "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" not a notable label so even a label which passes wp:corp but only has a few blue linked bands is not enough. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As it stands delete. The article clearly states mini-albums. That is less than an album, regardless of what that dictionary says. The music industry differentiates between singles (which that definition calls an album), eps, mini albums, demos, albums, etc as should criteria dealing with the music industries. The criterea mentioned above from wp:music requires two albums, here we have less than two albums. The criterea is there for a reason, most press is not online. When an important label releases albums they send out copies to media outlets for reviews, media outlets take important labels seriously and review the albums but most are not online. It is safe to presume coverage exists in these cases. The criteria is not a problem here. It simply does not apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The rules don't state a difference in what kind of album it is, be it mini or regular length. Dream Focus 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - WP:BAND is a guideline and not policy. Interpretation of the guideline should be tempered with WP:COMMONSENSE. Wikilawyering with the exact text is not productive. A mini-album is less than a regular album's worth of works. As creative effort, it is less substantial and should be treated accordingly. Having said all of that, being a Japanese group, it's unclear for the notability based on searching in English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::There are some albums considered notable, because of a few hit songs on them. Would they be less notable, if the unpopular songs on them were eliminated? The length of an album is not relevant. Musicians shouldn't feel pressure to just add lower quality songs to fill up space. And all wikipedia policies are guidelines, there no set laws, it all left to consensus of whoever is around at the time to discuss it. Dream Focus 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep I will never hear this music nor spend a penny to buy one of their albums... but they are notable per guideline and have coverage in reliable sources. NOTE: article need be tagged to ask for additional sourcing. Perhaps also tag for input from Japanese wikipedians? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:Comment [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrxVSYOL5Ek No reason you can't]! Mellow, classical-pop stuff. At least they can play their own instruments, always a plus for pop musicians. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG yet. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.