Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximalist! (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 delete. Sandstein 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximalist! (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)

Unedited and unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:NBAND. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - seems to be a case of WP:GARAGE. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to be many brief mentions of the band in Google books, e.g. [1] whether that makes them notable or not I'm not sure, but I expect there would be in-depth coverage in Belgian sources. It might come down to finding sources that may not have been archived in the internet (which is always a problem for finding sources for subjects that existed pre-internet age) as well as in non-English sources. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On consideration, I think the band qualifies under criterion #6 of WP:NBAND as it is an an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians. As for sources, as mentioned above, there are many that talk about the ensemble, some very recent, e.g. [2][3][4][5] (this appears to suggest the ensemble won some award), [6]. That the group continued to be mentioned over a long period of time suggests that there is some lasting notability. Hzh (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not cite any sources (I am happy to withdraw this call for deletion if some one can find some sources for this article). Vorbee (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have been added, there should be more. Hzh (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with original post.Vmavanti (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if people actually read the guideline on notability WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is not determined by the sources in the article, but sources that can be found per WP:NEXIST. The rationale for the nomination is invalid. Hzh (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what notability is. A quick internet search gives at least an idea of what sources are available. The purpose of a citation is so the reader can look up the source and verify the information in the article. A reader can't verify anything if there are no sources, unreliable sources, broken links, or sources in a foreign language. If sources are that hard to find, it's one indication that the subject is not notable. Writers, editors, contributors need to learn that their interests are not necessarily shared by by others. That's simply part of growing up.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem finding sources, note also that non-English sources are perfectly fine per WP:SIGCOV. I have no particular interest in the subject, but at the least I try to look for sources before deciding whether something is notable or not, which is something required when nominating an article for deletion per WP:BEFORE, something the nominator did not do. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but logic and common sense suggest that readers of the English Wikipedia benefit most from English sources, and that is what the documentation encourages.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the guidelines say. Whether the sources is in English, or whether something is online and easily searchable is not relevant to the question of notabiltiy. Hzh (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was related to notability, but the documentation does favor English sources for the English Wikipedia. I'm certain of that.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, WP:DEL-REASON for reason to delete. Hzh (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I put the time with google translate and found that most of the sources just mention the group in passing, or not at all--this is not significant coverage. The first two refs actually do discuss the group directly, albeit briefly, and in my view this is still no quite enough to meet of WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 17:37, 10 October 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.