Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Buttons

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The result was Withdrawn notability established Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck Buttons

Fuck Buttons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete NN band. Article cites 4 references;

  1. Time Out Magazine - Appears to be no more than a listing for a gig - trivial mention, therefore not relevant
  2. Pitchfork Media - no evidence that this is a reliable source
  3. New-noise.net - appears to be a blog - not a reliable source
  4. Observer Music Monthly - group gets a one line mention in a full length article - passing mention doesn't confer notability Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete With only one released album, the band fails WP:MUSIC. WP:N requires multiple mentions in sources, so even if Pitchfork is reliable (which seems debatable to me, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it), they'd need a few more to meet that. I'm not finding anything on Google other than what we've already got. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Other sources are available. here. Also, WP:MUSIC criterion #4 is satisfied here. I also added a link to their AMG page. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither source appears to be a reliable source which might establish notability Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - What are you basing that statement on? Pitchfork Media has long been deemed reliable - they're one of the standard references for album reviews. And Metro Spirit is a published local paper. What makes you dismiss it as unreliable? —Torc. (Talk.) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now And your point is? You know, there's plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that don't have established notability. So maybe someone should look for it first. Even if these sources can't stay, it doesn't mean the band itself is not notable. Give it some time and see if sources come up. If not, then we'll see another AFD nomination come up. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources quoted are from reliable publications (Pitchfork unreliable - really?), band are a signed international touring act playing major independent festivals, etc etc. User:Guntrip —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Aside from the Pitchfork stuff here and their All Music Guide entry here, they also have a page at Drowned in Sound. For me, these are reliable sources, meaning these guys meet WP:MUSIC quite easily. sparkl!sm hey! 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the first time I've become familiar with the deletion policies of non-notable musical artists, but if it's worth anything, they also have a page on Last.fm ([1]) and are touring with notable artist CaribouTimothyarnold85 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Band's press increasing daily. Pitchfork is a VERY reliable subject, in fact it's probably the most influential music publication in the world right now, far more so than Rolling Stone or the NME who have become followers rather than trend setters. Jamie runout (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (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.