Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass Hysteria (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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass Hysteria (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another admin restored this after deletion but seems to think that references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. There are multiple reliable sources covering this, and verifying their claims of releasing music on a notable independent label, which WP:MUSIC considers evidence of notability. You should know this better than anyone, RHaworth; after all, the multiple, reliable sources were left on your talkpage. A pity you didn't think to do anything about it, or even acknowledge the receipt of the message. Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wonder why the nominator didn't just add the sources that he had access to? Wouldn't that be a better solution than deleting a viable article? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not have access to the sources at the time I deleted it and I did acknowledge receipt of the message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I worded my question poorly: I should have said "Wouldn't that be a better solution than opening an AFD on a viable article?" Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not have access to the sources at the time I deleted it and I did acknowledge receipt of the message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wonder why the nominator didn't just add the sources that he had access to? Wouldn't that be a better solution than deleting a viable article? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you saw that there were references. Why, then, is this at AfD? Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There appears to be plenty of coverage around to confirm notability, with several news articles found from a Google News search. The nominator should consider including an argument for deletion in future when bringing articles here rather than just criticising another editor. A lack of references can be fixed by editing and there is no other argument presented relating to the subject of the article.--Michig (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable band, the article being a stub is not a reason to delete it! Od1n (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I tried to improve the article by adding a short history of the band with some references... It's far from perfect but I think, with some time, I could add how they worked with Colin Richardson, when they recorded their third album in the UK, the evolution of their style, how they tried to record a song with Michel Houellebecq (and failed), etc Eleventh1 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (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.