Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLOUDS - influential 60's Rock Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] CLOUDS - influential 60's Rock Group

CLOUDS - influential 60's Rock Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject does not appear notable. See below Various Googlings of the names of the supposed band members' names in conjunction with "The Clouds" yield very few results. tgies 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - A band which doesn't appear to be notable (fails WP:MUSIC), and I can't find any sources to show notability. Jayden54 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - appears to be more notable than I thought after looking at their website for a second time, which lists several news articles and interviews with the band. The article needs some serious work though. Jayden54 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the title of the article also needs to be changed to just 'CLOUDS', but that can be done once this AfD has been closed (if it doesn't get deleted). Jayden54 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong comment. This is stupid. Signed. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Herculean comment. Article title does not meet Wikipedia standard style criteria. B&. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah mainly as per tgies. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - :User: Matthew.hartingtonI don't accept your definition of Clouds not being 'notable'. If you read the sources I left at the foot of the page, you'd find all the sources and verification you need. A cursory glance at Amazon. com, both in the Uk and the Usa, will show you who Clouds were. If you checked the Clouds website (www.cloudsmusic.com) as I originally suggested, you'd find yet more articles and references, including the 4 page MOJO Magazine article about Clouds/1-2-3 which credited them with 'The Birth of Prog', and in which, David Bowie describles Billy Ritchie as 'an unrecognised genius'. 'The History of Scottish Rock & Pop' is a BBC book (Guinness Publishing) - there seems ample source confirmation of everything said in the article. Unless the criteria is something completely different than I understand it to be, I don't see how the band can be dismissed as 'not notable'. Thanks to tgies for providing info leading to WP: MUSIC info - Clouds pass on sections 1;4;5;6;12 11:55 7 December 2006
  • My "herculean comment" wasn't entirely in jest. Even if this band were notable, which you've done nothing to convince anyone of, the article is not written in a form suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, either in terms of the selection of content, the tone, or even the basic formatting which every other article has. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're probably right on suitable form etc - I only joined an hour ago, and I haven't taken in enough information to be able to satisfy the criteria you mention, definitely fair comment; but your early assertion about not convincing anyone is a bit more debatable - all the articles and facts are in the public domain, and can be easily verified, especially at the website address I've given. Then again, it could well be that I'm falling down on that part of the formatting too.........sorry for the (hopefully temporary!) mess.."Matthew.hartington 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)"

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. whoops tgies 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Guys this band does really exist. For starters I already knew they did because my dad has one of their early LPs on vinyl and plus their website is real. As Matthew.hartington said to search in Amazaon as well and you will find a few of their albums two of which named 'Scrapbook' and 'Watercolour Days.' This page just needs a bit of cleanign up the it shall be purrrrfect. Debaser23 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sure, it exists, but so does my band and the "band" formed by the kids down the street who make their music by scraping putty knives on fretboards. Is it really notable, though? tgies 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and Rewrite article name is stupid and the article itself is full of peapoppycock. Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep two albums on Island Records smells like a WP:MUSIC pass to me. Despite which, the article title needs changing immediately should it be kept and the article itself needs bringing up to standard, badly. QuagmireDog 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have cleaned the article up a little bit but the whole 'biography section of this article needs clearing up and split considering its basically all copied off Clouds website. Debaser23 09:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That needs to be fixed Right The Now, then, because it's a WP:COPYVIO. If someone doesn't fix it soon, it'll be up for speedy deletion. tgies 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]
  • Comment - Okay I've just deleted the whole biography section that was copied off the site. I will rewrite in a while when I gain the right information. Debaser23 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & rename - assuming the references check out. (Oh, and assuming some actual content's added, of course.) Quack 688 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, I've put up their discography but it looks a little messy. If anyone has any time woudl it be possible to put this discography into a table because to be honest I'm not really sure how to do that. Thanks. Debaser23 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• If the claims in this article are true, this certainly passes the WP:MUSIC test: Keep if it can be verified from independent reputable sources (and, of course, rename it). -- The Anome 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• very grateful to all of you for such generosity in taking this on board.....sorry it's all been approached rather basically..."[[Matthew.hartington 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]] 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"
• Deletion nomination withdrawn -- keep, cleanup, & rename. Okay, this appears notable (albeit barely), and I was perhaps less than diligent in my investigation prior to this nomination. The article still needs a heck of a lot of wikification and such, though, as others have said. tgies 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It's true what Debaser said earlier - I basically took the extract straight from the Clouds website, to be honest, I hadn't realised the significance of the encyclopedia. I had been browsing something entirely different, when I ran into two entries for bands called 'Clouds', none of which were the 60's band. The exclusion seemed unfair to me, the two included groups did not have the same impact on music history. I knew about the website because it's run by a friend of mine, and I thought I'd help - chaotically! I could write another article, but you all seem to be doing that very well without my interference! Many thanks - and despite any bias, I DO think the group is well worthy of inclusion - in fact, a properly-factual entry in Wikipedia ensures a better account of REAL history than music tabloid does. I agree about the article name too, but how best to change it? 'CLOUDS' on its own seems not distinctive enough for the particular subject. 'CLOUDS 60's'? Something to differentiate from the other (later) groups who used the same name. "Matthew.hartington 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"

Comment : Matthew.hartington is it possible for you to finish off the CLOUDS biography. I have done half of it. Its just you seemed to know alot about the band and it would be nice to see some other users contributing to the page except me!! Debaser23 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Of course, I'd be glad to. And thank you for all your help, and what you've done so far. I was just waiting for advice as to how to proceed. I'll study Wikipedia articles and form, and try to clean it up as much as possible, though I'm sure experienced users will still be able to contribute much more than I can. "Matthew.hartington 22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"

Comment - Okay I've realised some people have expanded on the biography. Do you have any information on the albums that we can put in? I think its decided that this page shouldn't be deleted now... Debaser23 09:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks Debaser23, you did the spadework! I did expand on what you did, unfortunately, I forgot to properly sign in when I did it, hence confusion over who did the editing - still a novice! But I hope it's going along the right lines for all the editors. Still not sure what to do about the title - any suggestions? What kind of info on the albums are you thinking of? "Matthew.hartington 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"

Comment - Yes, yes I realised that it was you who edited the page. What you have written is good and professionally done. If you have any information about the critical response of the albums and put in a mention of them in their biography like, for example, when the albums were released. Because this is a page is the articles for deletion page continue this discussion in the CLOUDS talk page. Thanks! Debaser23 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)