Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Squid (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. John254 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (band)[edit]

There are no claims in this article that would (if demonstrated with independent sources sources, none of which are cited at present) satisfy the notability guidelines for bands. Bongo matic 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new info provided by Michig Delete per nom, also no apparent compliance with WP:BIO for any of the band members. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, same as above. K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ They have an Allmusic profile here which is usually a reasonable indicator that they have a degree of notability. There also seem to be plenty of interviews and the like with the band from a cursory Google search. Would certainly need some sourcing if someone had the time, but might possibly scrape through. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep on basis of sources found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. They also have this subsantial review from Allmusic, and a google search would have found loads more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Please spend some time searching for sources before bringing articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC#C1 with the ref's Michig found, since they obviously had the time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a difference between what Michig and Esradekan consider to be a reliable source and my view. Maybe others will weigh in. By the way, Michig, please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't spend the time to consider his/her actions and think about assuming good faith in the future. Bongo matic 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Pointing out what the guideline states should be done is not a failure to 'assume good faith', and it's annoying when people come up with this argument.--Michig (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But assuming that the nominator didn't do those things is such a failure. Bongo matic 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no indication that you did such a search or found those results. It is not a failure to 'assume good faith', it's an assumption that the nominator didn't search Google and Google News before nominating the article, and a reminder that this should be done. By the way, what problem do you have with Austin American-Statesman, Allmusic, and austin360.com (the Austin American-Statesman's website), for example, as reliable sources?--Michig (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#1, as demonstrated by Michig. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:52, 5 January 2009 (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.