Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowerbirds (band)

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 delete The Pitchfork Media reference is damned by the conflict of interest brought up by Nuttah68; without it, the entire article fails. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowerbirds (band)

Bowerbirds (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; no album yet, the record label doesn't seem notable, and there isn't external coverage. (Lots of Google hits but they're mostly about the actual bird. Crystallina 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. If they achieve later fame, the article can be re-created. --Elonka 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is indeed an album out by these guys (albeit on a small record label) and there have been two independent sources of published reviews (from Pitchfork Media and the Independent Weekly). So, while we might be able to call their record label non-notable, we cannot say that there haven't been multiple sources of external coverage, and per WP:MUSIC, that seems to be enough to keep the article to me. --TheSteve04 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet able to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Might be so in future in which case article should be re-created but for the time being wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My point here is, indeed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but more than a quick Google search will turn up numerous results for external coverage, with multiple independent reviews of an album that has indeed been released from notable sources. We seem to be assuming that there is no album and/or external coverage, and there is indeed such material, so we can't quite make these claims. Instead, the major argument is not about whether the article is speculative in nature (the crystal ball argument) but whether the group is notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia. Considering that this group has been featured in and given positive reviews by well-known outlets such as Pitchfork Media, I've got to think that the group is notable enough to at least remain in Wikipedia, and with the advent of further material, there should be no debate on the issue. --TheSteve04 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Subject doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, at least not yet – Qxz 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fails WP:MUSIC. The Pitchfork Media sources is tainted severely by the disclaimer 'Full disclosure: Bowerbirds are recording their debut LP for a label run by Pitchfork staffer Grayson Currin.' discounting it as an independent source. The Independent Weekly article, a local paper featuring a local band, is not enough to get a band that fails WP:MUSIC on every point an article. Apart from that, despite claims, there appear to be no other reliable sources available. Nuttah68 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. /Blaxthos 04:00, 5 March 2007 (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.