Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foals (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, closing early as nominator and notability per WP:MUSIC has been established.--Isotope23 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foals (band)
This article has been speedy deleted 4 times. This time there is a semi-claim of notability (though unsourced) so I thought AFD is the better place. Despite the claim of being mentioned in NME and playing SXSW, this band fails the WP:MUSIC criteria and the aritcle should be deleted until they meet said criteria. Isotope23 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kind of surprised this has been zapped so often, as I get a lot of play in the British music media for them. BBC interview regarding the SXSW gigs they played and mentioning the signing to a notable record label, Transgressive Records, and an audio interview described as being done on the first day of a national headlining tour. NME does seem to discuss them regularly, though some do seem to be just gig lists with a couple of comments and reviews thrown in. A review on OxfordBands.com, a Guardian Unlimited piece on the band, and another (though on the Blogs section) mentioning them at SXSW. Finally, a Drowned In Sound review of a London gig, and a mention there of Foals backing up Bloc Party for a few gigs. MySpace page (shudder) indicates gigs right through December around Britain. I'd be happier with a second album on a good label, but I think there's enough here for at least a weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That's quite a bit of press Tony Fox dug up. Sad that so much gets A7'ed without so much as a Google search... Chubbles 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Meta-comment. Actually, the onus is on the creator of the article to find the information, not the deleter. As a rule, the notability requirement state not only that notability must be asserted, but it must also be referenced. That said, before I delete an article the second time, I will usually do a cursory Google search. I'll also search if there's a shred of something in the article to go on. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- What concerns me about A7 deletions is that, I'm rather certain, inherently encyclopedic material gets deleted frequently because it's poorly written - that is, it's written by someone who doesn't know Wikipedia's notability requirements for music, and so doesn't state such in the article. It bothers me as an editor, and as someone who uses Wikipedia specifically as a resource for not-very-well-known music. Ah, if only I wrote policy... Chubbles 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- There wasn't anything inherently encyclopedic about the versions of this article that were deleted. It was essentially "Foals is a band that plays Math rock" a discography, and a MySpace link. The current version is substantially different and quite a bit meatier.--Isotope23 01:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- What concerns me about A7 deletions is that, I'm rather certain, inherently encyclopedic material gets deleted frequently because it's poorly written - that is, it's written by someone who doesn't know Wikipedia's notability requirements for music, and so doesn't state such in the article. It bothers me as an editor, and as someone who uses Wikipedia specifically as a resource for not-very-well-known music. Ah, if only I wrote policy... Chubbles 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Meta-comment. Actually, the onus is on the creator of the article to find the information, not the deleter. As a rule, the notability requirement state not only that notability must be asserted, but it must also be referenced. That said, before I delete an article the second time, I will usually do a cursory Google search. I'll also search if there's a shred of something in the article to go on. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the fox's findings. Notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability established and documented per Tony Fox's research. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd be fine with a WP:SNOW Keep close of this AFD if someone wants to update the article so notability is established (per Tony's sources above).--Isotope23 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a stab at it here in a bit - it needs a rewrite, too. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 8 July 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.
