Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venini

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venini[edit]

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

A short-lived band that is hanging its fame on the fact its founder was a member of Pulp. Most of the article is about what happened subsequently to its members. The article has remained unsourced for 5 years! I can't find anything to indicate Venini meets any notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Russell Senior. MusicOMH gave them a bit of attention[1][2] but they don't seem to have done enough or received enough coverage to be notable themselves. However, it's possible there is more material in late 90s print magazines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Russell Senior. At the moment the amount of sourceable content is small, but there are sources available, e.g. 2 from the NME: [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep - improvements convince me that this is worth keeping as a separate article. --Michig (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this is a good candidate for merging as Russell was not the only notable member of the group. I'll take the time to fix the sources if it's left alone for a couple of weeks. It's been difficult previously because music magazines from the mid-late 90s tend not to be online, but more has become available recently, as noted above. As for basic notability, they clearly meet critera 1, 4 and 6 of WP:BAND - it's just a matter of demonstating this in the article. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think that this page should stay because Russell is not the only important member of the band who this page should be linking to. the man from ladytron is here as well and people using the ladytron page should be able to come here to find out about his non-ladytron work rather than have to go to russel seniors page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.164.145 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russell Senior, which seems to be a good target, already mentioning the band in some detail (casting my 'vote' as nominator). Sionk (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can previous voters please take a look at the improvements I've made to the page before any action is taken. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements, WP:HEY. Borderline notability, but surely meets WP:BAND#6, more weakly WP:BAND#1 and #4. Cavarrone (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2013 (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.