Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overcast (band)

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. Consensus is that the sources unearthed by KingAndGod are sufficient to be able to improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overcast (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC. Editors have made claims that they are pioneers to their genre, but they've made no effort to assert that with sources. No inline cites, only three at the bottom which are of minimal value, though reliable.

No evidence to keep is presented here; perhaps people have just had no effort and the article just sucks, but I doubt it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commnet I remember this band was a big deal in the 90's New England hardcore/metalcore scene. Having said that, we need actually sources to establish notability, and unfortunately for this case, their name is so generic that it makes the usual googling more difficult. There is this though: [1] Yilloslime ^T_C 04:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources to assert notability per WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are often regarded as pioneers of the metalcore genre. Significant coverage of reliable sources ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]). KingAndGod 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the most promising of those sources would appear to be the first two, as they are books rather than random web sites, but I can't find any information about the publisher of the first, Zonda Books, not even a web site, and the second is published by PediaPress, which simply publishes Wikipedia content, so this is a circular reference. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep metalsucks, sputnik music, allmusic bio are reliable sources and also terroriser (referenced on their album article) so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SputnikMusic is borderline. I have never seen Terroriser used for any article I've edited before. Does most everyone agree it's reliable here? dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the sources that have been found, this squeaks by on WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - For a group this influential (or that is, at least, is frequently claimed to have significant influence), it's pretty odd that detailed information about the band's history and sound is hard to come by. The members get talked about but the project itself seems to be only mentioned briefly. Still, coverage by reliable sources such as Allmusic make it appear to me that the article is worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2018 (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.