Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptists (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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baptists (band)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as being notable under any WP:NMUSIC criterion. The only notability claim even being attempted here at all is the number of albums they've released -- but even NMUSIC makes passage of that criterion conditional on the notability of the record label the albums were released on, while neither of the record labels linked in the band's infobox is properly sourced as notable enough to get its artists over NMUSIC #5. And the referencing here is 7/8 to blog content that does not help to establish the notability of a band -- the only reference here that actually gets them off the starting blocks is PopMatters, but one review in one reliable source is not enough sourcing to get them to the finish line all by itself. The article basically just states that they exist, lists the albums, and then uses the (again, mostly unreliable) footnotes just to reference bomb genre labels rather than any notability-making accomplishments, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's now three albums through Soutern Lord and that still satisfies WP:MUSIC#5. Available sources include [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 is not passed by albums on just any record label, it's passed only if the albums are on a specific narrow tier of major labels and/or noteworthy independent labels, and Southern Lord is not reliably sourced as being in that narrow tier — its entire article is shitsourced to a single unreliable blog entry, not to coverage which establishes its notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and Metacritic shows that they have also been reviewed in Kerrang!. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 4 December 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.