Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swarf (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 (non-admin closure). Although some of the !votes appear questionable, there is unanimity and sufficient input from established editors to safely close this out. — Caknuck 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarf (band)[edit]

Non notable band, only releases have been with non notable independent labels Sploooshman 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article subject does appear to be notable, the link to MySpace should be removed at it is not a reliable source and violates the external links policy. The Sunshine Man 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to the John Foxx connection. Corvus cornix 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have completed national tour with John Foxx - article is in dire need of sources; however. Bigdaddy1981 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep They've released a significant number of physical releases, which is more than many bands in the "download age" manage to do. They've also toured internationally, and with names like John Foxx and All About Eve / Julianne Regan. The fanbase is vocal and strong, albeit within its small community. As to "non notable independent labels", then this isn't an article about their label, it's an article about the band. Besides which, Wasp Factory are very notable within the genre.

I'd also keep the Myspace link. It's the band's own space and although MS is a dire abomination in general and not credible as a 3rd party reference, they're more relevant when they belong to a musicians using them for hosting / streaming of their own output. To quote the external links policy, "Such [linked] pages could contain [..] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as [...]" I would argue that MySpace's support for streaming hosting of the band's own material, a feature not available through Wikipedia itself, justifies this.

The article could certainly be better, but that's a case for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but ... wikify, verify, source! 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign this before. Bearian 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Merely because they are not a Top 40 band and are on a small independent label is not grounds imho for deleting this entry. They are a band with a solid and loyal fanbase within the Gothic and Electronic/Dance genres, and small independent labels have traditionally been a source of tremendous music within the UK - Oasis, arguably the largest band in the UK over the past ten or fifteen years, started out on the (then) tiny Creation label: A band's (and a Label's) value is not measured simply in the number of sales or downloads. Quality counts just as much as quantity.

Additionally, the link to the MySpace page should stay. Although MySpace is a hideous site with an abyssmal interface, the material there has been put up by Liz and Andrew themselves and is as accurate as that on the band's own website. Captain Lucy 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Captain Lucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy to the letter.86.135.85.238 (Julianne Regan)

Keep Swarf have been the subject of non-trivial published works featured in The Scotsman, Metal Hammer and The BBC, which is the first criterion for Notability (music).The_Axel 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for knowledge, therefore i can't see why every time a band appears in here that is not on a major label it gets flagged for deletion. why does it matter whether they have appeared on television or not? their musicians, they are supposed to be out there playing and recording music.

Keep this article, and allow other hard working musicians to be able to have their lives documented in here. Nevla

Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy and the others completely. I've simply no idea what grounds there are for deleting an article on a real band, who've been active on the live and recording fronts for some time now. They are a fact, like them or not; as much so as any more mainstream act and certainly more real than many in the charts! Is Wiki a depository for only "convenient facts"? BleepyF 11:54, 3 July 2007 (GMT)

Strong Keep Put me down as another one agreeing with Captain Lucy RichardHMorris 11:26, 3 July 2007 (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.