Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racetrack Babies

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. The addition of references has ensured that the consensus is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racetrack Babies[edit]

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

Vanity page about an unsigned band that has never charted; article created by a member of the band. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Most bands link to their Facespace and Mybook entries. This lot cannot even manage that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:BAND. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the light of new references, changed to keep.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references added by CactusWriter demonstrate notability per list item 1 of WP:BAND. Favonian (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I checked out all those sources and they don't seem to be reliable. A few of them are reviews that come from indie-music.com, which appears to be a site full of user-submitted reviews. The rest of the sources basically say the albums are being recorded and not much else. The whole situation kind of reminds me of this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unreliable? B.T. is the national daily tabloid for Berlingske Tidende, Politiken is a national daily newspaper, SoundVenue is a monthly newstand magazine (think Rolling Stone of Denmark), GAFFA is a Scandinavian music magazine published since 1983, and the Indie-Music.com cite simply references the online magazine staff's pick for "Best of..." The notability of this band may still be questionable, but the reliability of the sources is not. And as far as any similarity to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2 Much (from way back in 2007), I don't see it -- the history of that article shows it had no references other than MySpace. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (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.