Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Fight Dragons

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Fight Dragons[edit]

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

Delete. The supposed notability here is highly questionable, all sources related to the subject are blogs and fan reviews. JBsupreme (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete. The article is not cited to reliable sources and the band does not meet the notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles. See my explanation on the discussion page. I also suspect that the contributions (and edits to keep it only positive) are a result of the band's fans who, I suspect, will overwhelm this voting process with positive votes notwithstanding the fact that the band clearly doesn't (yet, at least) meet the critera for inclusion. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Felt I had to change to Strong Delete because Ludasaphire apparently changed his/her vote to Weak Delete based on someone adding a reference to Last.fm which is freely editable and, in fact, encourages unsigned artists like IFD "to promote their music." Last.fm bills itself as a "music service powered entirely by its community of listeners." So, the same people (fans?) who are updating Wikipedia are also updating Last.fm. Just as circular and, one would think, unacceptable as citing news sources that rely on Wikipedia. Worse, in fact, since unlike Wikipedia, self promotion is encouraged on Last.fm which doesn't even hold itself out to be a news source. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Some of the references are not trivial, but page is definitely a victim of WP:fancruft relative to their notability. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is worse than Cruft. It is self-promotion, IMO, of a non-notable band. I do not see notability established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As a previous editor of the page, I may be biased, but I can with complete certainty state that this page is, at worst, cruft. I personally know several of the other major contributors to the page and can vouch that it is not at all self-promotion. That being said, I do feel some of the sources are non-trivial, but that is a debate to be had in the discussion of this article.--Iaman (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion this passes the notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles as discussed on the discussion of the article. Cfilorux (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete": I like the band ~~but~~and this article ~~doesn't~~is starting to do them justice ~~at all~~. Still needs reliable sources, though, since the only reliable source referenced is a review in a college paper that criticizes the band for having a lead singer who "lacked vocal range" and failing to harmonize which, according to the reviewer, "killed their overall impact." Not a good indicator of notability and, based on my personal experience, not an accurate reflection of the band. I say we do the band a favor by deleting this article now and start over with a clean slate when the band achieves notability as reflected in reliable sources. Ludasaphire (talk) 06:20, 7 November 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.