Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tractor (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 and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tractor (band) and Chris Hewitt
Contested prod. Sixties band, but lacking in sources. Not sure if this is truly notable, or if it's all self-published. >Radiant< 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Tractor is definitely real and almost certainly notable, but the bulk of the article is a copyvio from Allmusic Guide (one of the more common sources for music-related copyvios). There's been a bunch of editing since the original copyvio was posted, so I'm not sure if the result is salvageable or not. As for Hewitt, he seems to be real, and was associated with the band, but even so, the notability seems marginal. Dunno. Xtifr tälk 08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintake the 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If you take the rash step of including "things I saw at Deeply Vale in 1979" in the category of "things that exist in the real world" then this band exists.I am sure it is recalled with affection by the 20,000 or so ageing hippies who were there and even if it's fame has spread no further than this I think it is enough to count as notable.
- Delete - At this point the unwikified article has had 6 months. If no one wants to take responsibility for making this a verifiable encyclopedic article, can it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Tractor, not only WP:IVEHEARDOFIT, but a band championed by John Peel and signed to his Dandelion Records label really ought to be not only notable but sourceable; that they apparently have an AMG entry is a good sign. That said, if it's a copyvio delete without prejudice to recreation. --kingboyk 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both unless citations are added. With the massive amount of articles on the Wikipedia, there really is no time for "keep to allow a chance to find citations" and similar arguments. See also TonytheTiger's argument. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we're all missing the point of Wikipedia. Sure, the article needs cleaning. And if I have to do it, I have to do it. But the argument "this band fulfills WP:MUSIC, there exist numerous verifiable sources, but there's too many articles on Wikipedia already so it might not get cleaned up" is not appropriate. If something deserves to be on Wikipedia, for God's sake, keep the article and clean it up. Rockstar915 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Tractor is a real band. The article may need to be cleaned up but not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jembay (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- Keep if citations added before end of AfD, otherwise Delete per WP:Music. If article is to be kept it needs a lot of work. A1octopus 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I agree, it needs a lot of work. But, per WP:MUSIC (criteria #4), all the band has to do is release two albums on a major or notable indie, and Tractor's fulfills that aspect (see here). So I agree citations are needed for the improvement of the article -- and they will be added -- but are not for its keeping. As it stands, per WP:MUSIC, the article should be kept and then improved sans a time frame. Rockstar915 00:40, 8 April 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.
