Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddlers' Bid

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. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddlers' Bid[edit]

Does not pass WP:MUSIC, awards mention are not major ones, album releases are not on major labels. RadioFan (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but I do believe that it passes WP:BAND criterion #5 (released 2 records on a major label). It has like 5 albums released via Greentrax, which ~~is... probably notable~~ satisfies the WP:BAND criterion #5. [flaming lawyer] 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we require musicians to have album releases on a major label to be included? riffic (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its not a requirement but its one way to pass notability rules. As flaming mentions. WP:BAND has several ways a musician can be shown to be notable, thats just one of them.--RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw the guidelines then, keep, IAR riffic (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced those are major labels. Riffic and flaming seem to be familiar with this band and those labels, can you explain more on why you feel they are major? --RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't major labels, there are only four major labels. oh notable. yes it probably is notable, see discussion over at the other afd riffic (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... The outcome of this AFD depends on the outcome of this one. [flaming lawyer] 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not, notability isn't subjective riffic (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the result does not depend on that outcome. wp:music does not talk about notable labels, it talks about "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Two different things. Labels can be notable without releasing a single thing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. So (if I'm reading this right) this label does satisfy the criteria listed there, meaning that the band is a keeper. [flaming lawyer] 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The label's article does list a lot of artists but some are of questionable notability, others there is no evidence they are or were on the labels roster. More checking would be needed to be sure. I think I have now enough sources to make it not matter here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allmusic link (includes two album reviews). Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some more sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. Articles covering international tour, The Age 04-11-2002 [5]; The Sunday Mail, Austrailia 03-11-2002. And if this is the same Fiddler's Bid then criteria 8 may also satisfied. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (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.