Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Will Destroy You

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, with a reminder to include some of the found sources into the article itself. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Will Destroy You

This Will Destroy You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also included in this nomination:

Prod disputed with message, "This is a real band I'm listening to them right now." Non-notable band. The closest they come to secondary sources are when the Austin Chronicle and Pitchfork Media reviewed their first EP in 2005. Their notability has not increased and I can find no other reliable secondary sources. They just released a new CD but there's no evidence it's charted or even been reviewed by any major outlets. Besides the two articles mentioned above, Ghits are all networking sites and sites selling the band's CDs. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep sources exist, use them. Catchpole (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I was not able to find sources outside the two mentioned from 2005 (two sources is not enough to establish notability, especially when they're just album reviews) and the creator was not forthcoming. Would you enlighten me? Redfarmer (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources this editor was referring to is a Google News search [1], which turns up one additional review from a small newspaper of the reviewer saying their new album is crap, two listings for the band playing a particular city soon (trivial coverage), and one interview with a completely different non-notable band mentioning they had played a show with this band before (trivial). Redfarmer (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I would dispute this. Apart from a second Pitchfork Media review that you may not have noticed, the web comic Questionable Content mentioned them today. This usually causes websites to eat their monthly bandwidth allowance in several hours, and you can expect the Google hits to multiply overnight. Anticogot (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Other sources after a brief search reveal a feature on the band in January's Rock Sound magazine and a forthcoming European tour. Anticogot (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll need to see the magazine and the lineup of the tour to gauge the notability of those but a mention in a web comic hardly can be construed as notability. Redfarmer (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're referring to this article (posting it here for full disclosure). I'm iffy about this establishing notability with this magazine alone. I'll wait and see what others think. Redfarmer (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the article in the print version. There is also this review in the same publication. Anticogot (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally I agree about the web comic thing, I thought it might be worth mentioning however. Anticogot (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
They have also been name-checked in Rolling Stone. Anticogot (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Band has toured country and there albums are for sale on Amazon.com which is a major outlet. They are also listed on allmusic.com. The Metro (talk) 17:24, 11 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.