Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Trial Five
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Trial Five[edit]
- Secret Trial Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence they meet WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Author Keep The article is studded with references. I don't understand the reasoning behind this AfD. Chubbles (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can see from the Article is they went on a tour - does not seem to be a Notable Band - can't work out what they have done to show that they meet WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a "national tour" - in this case Canada and parts of the United States - is one of the factors per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the section you quote says "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour" the refs supporting any tour do not mention any Secret Trial Five tour only that they played a gig at a given venue. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:BAND #1 ("the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") appears to be met through this, this and possibly even this. There's also a chance of #7 ("one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style "), but that's a little more subjective. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian and Newsnight refs are not about the band but about Taqwacores, as for The Ithacan Online (note the redlink) it is the student-run publication of Ithaca College and the article is about Michael Muhammed Knight's book and film. Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Clearly we have differing views about what constitutes significant coverage, although if The Ithacan (note the blue link!) isn't a reliable source that would change things. However, the argument you've given actually convinces me that they pass WP:MUSIC. If two reliable sources feel the group are worth mentioning in an article about Taqwacore - a notable genre of music - then it's reasonable to say that they're "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style ", hence are notable under WP:BAND #7. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your conclusion. However with out the coverage of the Band at all - how does it pass WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably agree that it doesn't pass WP:GNG, but it doesn't have to. Under WP:BAND it can be notable without having received significant coverage at all, so long as it's verifiable (which it is). Looking at the Guardian and Newsnight sources I'd suggest that criteria #7 is met, so GNG is irrelevant in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your conclusion. However with out the coverage of the Band at all - how does it pass WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly we have differing views about what constitutes significant coverage, although if The Ithacan (note the blue link!) isn't a reliable source that would change things. However, the argument you've given actually convinces me that they pass WP:MUSIC. If two reliable sources feel the group are worth mentioning in an article about Taqwacore - a notable genre of music - then it's reasonable to say that they're "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style ", hence are notable under WP:BAND #7. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 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.