Talk:Titus Andronicus (band)

Deletion discussion

This band's debut album has been receiving a lot of attention from high-profile sources. Keep the article. Kingcobweb (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAND, and provide reliable sources to prove that they meet notability guidelines. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This band satisfies the first criterion: being "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". As you can see at the article for their debut album, The Airing of Grievances, the album was reviewed by Pitchfork Media, Exclaim!, and cokemachineglow, as well as experimusic.com and Lost at Sea magazine. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Having been reviewed is not a notability criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The band must be the subject of published works in any form, but there are some exceptions. Let's go through these exceptions:

• Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
  • Reviews do not fall under this description.
• Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
  • Reviews do not fall under this description.
• An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
  • Reviews do not fall under this description.

I do not see how reviews from independent, reliable sources fails to meet these guidelines. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, every band which has ever had a published review now qualifies under WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, were the reviews articles about the band, or articles about their album? Different kettle of fish. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but citing reviews is still an (arguably invalid) assertion of notability. Send it to AfD. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pitchfork is currently the leading publication for independent music. If an artist is reviewed favorably in pitchfork they are or will become notable. ref as far as notibily is concernded. according the WP guidelines, they absolutely pass.

• Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
  • they were #7 on billboard the heatseekers chart ref
• Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
  • XL recordings is a very important and significant independent record label, who has a roster including artists such as M.I.A., Weezer, Beck, and radiohead. ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.104.21 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Members (timeline)

I created a timeline of band members but haven't published it yet as I'd rather someone went over it to ensure that dates have been rendered correctly as I took the dates from the article as it is and they're not clear on start / end dates (eg. Andrew Cedermark). If you want, you can edit it (or confirm that it's correct) and then add it to the article page by typing {{include timeline}} (into the Band members section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzzzzz12 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Another useful common thing is vertical bars to indicate when albums were recorded (Yeah, I know, "Are your fingers broken, Mr. Fife?"). - Richfife (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)