Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BiS Kaidan

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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BiS Kaidan[edit]

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

The length of the article, and manner with which it has been edited (see review summary for 3rd December, 13:40), suggests that either; the article is not actually notable, or the user who created the page is too directly linked to the subject. (ie. member of group etc.) Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than fairly sure the world's first idol noise band, covered in British and American music press for how wildly unprecedented it is (issue 355 of The Wire has a full page about them), constitutes something notable. For example, I think it's worth noting that a noise album reached Japan's Oricon Top 40, where charting music is generally far more non-threatening.

Hijokaidan is one of the first noise bands in the world (and if Jojo Hiroshige is to be believed, the very first). BiS has broken through to the charts' top ten twice in a row now. The fact that idol culture is so far removed from the pissing, bleeding, visceral performances that Hijokaidan are famous for makes a collaboration like this certainly notable in the minds of anyone who is familiar with idols and noise, hence all the coverage.

Of course, to flat out say that in the article is not really the kind of writing that's suitable for an encyclopedia, obviously.

Instead of moving straight to hastily slating the page for deletion, it might be a better idea for you to state what the problems with it are - there was some vague mention that the sources cited didn't seem "reliable", but there is not a single site cited (try saying that three times fast) that's unreliable. It's short, but can of course be expanded - to me it seems more like a stub than something entirely unworthy of note. This is, after all, the same website with a List of fictional turtles.

"the user who created the page is too directly linked to the subject. (ie. member of group etc.)"

Yes, you've caught me, I am actually a cute, entrail-chucking idol from Japan who edits foreign-language Wikipedia articles in her spare time.❤ Screaming coffee (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A subject covered in detail across continents in The Wire by a respected journalist; also coverage in The Guardian (though less WP:RS as on their site blog). AllyD (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHave to say, on reflection, yes, the article is worth keeping. Clearly a notable group. Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 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.