Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asbestosdeath

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. Satisfies the guidelines specified in WP:MUSIC. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestosdeath

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band released an EP on Profane Existence (which has since become the most collectable 7" on that label). In addition, they have had a compilation 10"/CD come out on Southern Lord Records, a large indie metal/rock label. The band later changed members and morphed into Sleep, a HIGHLY influencial band with albums on Earache Records, Music Cartel, and Tee Pee Records. Members later went on to Om and High on Fire, a highly influencial and popular band on Relapse Records BeastmasterGeneral 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as has been noted, this band was the first incarnation of Sleep, a hugely influential stoner doom band. Members of Asbestosdeath and Sleep later went on to form Om and High on Fire, which have also gained considerable followings. ___Superfopp (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article makes clear assertions of notability; band exceeds WP:MUSIC. Current lack of reliable sources is not a valid rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are and have been a gazillion bands. No indication this one was notable. Edison (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeastmasterGeneral. --Bardin (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof that it satisfies the Wikipedia:MUSIC guideline, this band might be known in some cicles and yet fail the Wikipedia:MUSIC guideline.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band doesn't fail WP:MUSIC; several editors have pointed out that it passes the guidelines. I'm not sure why this is a matter of contention. Chubbles (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC: the band "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep Fails both WP:N and WP:V because it doesn't have any Reliable Sources. ~~Also, contrary to the beliefs of others above, this fails WP:MUSIC.~~ Razor flame 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion != proof. How does this fail WP:MUSIC? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I have fixed my above vote to reflect that. Cheers, Razor flame 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking back. Still, WP:MUSIC is the relevant notability guideline for musical groups... (To be honest, I've never really been in favour of the existence of the subject-specific notability guidelines, but they do exist.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:MUSIC is the relevant notability guideline, but with having the article not have any reliable sources, then wouldn't it not be notable because if an article is unsourced, then wouldn't it fail WP:N? Just a thought, Razor flame 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present lack of reliable sources is not a valid rationale for deletion; plently of clearly notable subjects have extant articles with no sources. The solution is to add sources, not delete the article. Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to weak keep in light of what you just posted. Cheers, Razor flame 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several sources to the article. So far, I've added mostly sources to support existing content, but the sources could also be used to expand the article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.