Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports (band)

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 delete. Naked All the Time has been A9'd, and Sports (2012 band) moved to the current title. King of ♠ 07:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports (band)[edit]

Sports (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did some Googling and could not find many sources on this band, which is probably the reason as to why the article is under-referenced. There is another band with the same name with more coverage and notability that I plan to create an article on, and I think would better suit this article space than the Oklahoma band with not much reliable source coverage. Andise1 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Newly created band consisting of apparently non-notable individual members. And...I'm sorry but this is a clear WP:IAR situation where the effective burden of proof rests largely on the article creator. No one is going to look through scores or hundreds of articles to try to assess whether a band named Shoe or And is notable. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andise1:, if the more notable band you're talking about is a Canadian one, then you should be aware that this article actually was about that band from 2009 until 2015, at which point it was hijacked and overwritten to be about the Oklahoma band instead of the original topic — followed by a revert back to the Canadian band again, and then by a second rehijacking in summer 2016. (If anybody's wondering, I learned all this by investigating why a band from Oklahoma was flagged on its talk page as belonging to WikiProject Canada.) So if that's the band you mean, then we can restore the pre-hijacking version rather than you actually having to start over from scratch (and if the one you actually have in mind is an Austrlian band of the 1970s instead, then they already have an article at The Sports too.) That said, the old article wasn't great, and would also be potentially deletable under current WP:NMUSIC standards if not significantly improved. Accordingly, my vote is to revert back to the Canadian band, albeit without prejudice against also renominating it for AFD in the future if the sources don't pan out update: see my reply to Andise1 below — even if the American band can be properly sourced over NMUSIC, they would have to be given a disambiguated title and would not be entitled to just overwrite an existing article about a different topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is about a Philadelphia band. I am creating the article now and will link it here when I am finished. I didn't think about the disambiguated title before but that sounds like the best idea here. Andise1 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'm switching to a straight delete on this one, then, because if your sources aren't about the Canadian band and I can't find any solid ones about them either, then what's left in the original pre-hijack article isn't good enough to restore them without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Bearcat:, I created an article on the other band named Sports under the title Sports (2012 band), so if any other more notable band is suitable to have the title Sports (band) they can be moved here, assuming the current article is deleted. Andise1 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KAP03Talk • Contributions 20:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:11, 11 January 2017 (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.