Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movies (band) (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Movies (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)

Fails WP:BAND. The article was prodded last year, but a confused history merge that was recently undone caused the article to be deprodded. Note that the UK band is not the same as the one deleted in the other AfD, which was about the American band. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, extensive searching of the band members + various key words turns up absolutely nothing. Americanradiohistory.com includes multiple British music publications (for instance, I found a review for Hawkwind, Friends and Relations which had been unsourced since 2006), but nothing on these guys even with the members'names thrown in. One source I thought was extensive turned out to be a web forum. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five studio albums, one of which was released on A&M and two on RCA, satisfies WP:NMUSIC. They also had a half-hour concert broadcast on the BBC Radio 1 show In Concert and appeared on The Old Grey Whistle Test. --Michig (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for any of this? I've said it before, WP:NMUSIC is not ironclad. I get just directory listings and false positives on Google Books, and no chart entries on the UK charts. American Radio History shows five hits for "Jon Cole" "The Movies", but two are false positives and one gives a 404, which leaves just two diminutive less-than-a-paragraph reviews that IMO aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album releases are easily verifiable. There's a BFI page showing three appearances on The Old Grey Whistle Test. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album releases are verifiable, but there is no additional content about them. The BFI listing is only a directory listing that mentions them in passing. Individual points may be verifiable, but where is the substantial third party coverage? None of what you've shown is substantial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC doesn't require us to find substantial third party coverage. As I've already mentioned to you, the era that the band were around, coverage is more likely to be in print sources. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean that WP:NMUSIC should be abided to at all times. A musical act can pass WP:NMUSIC and not pass WP:GNG. General notability always surpasses topical. Nor should we give an article a pass because coverage might possibly maybe be in sources not currently accessible. It really sounds like you're just trying to dodge the question whenever I ask if you've been able to find any reliable sources, even after I've gone out of my way to prove an absence of such. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Read WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" - you know this already. 2. I have demonstrated that at least two criteria of WP:NMUSIC are satisfied. Now stop your disruptive wikilawyering. --Michig (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating whether or not it passes, because it does meet at least one criterion. What I am debating is the utter lack of reliable, third-party sources, which you seem to be going out of your way not to address. Have you found any sources that I've missed? Or do you think the article should stay barren and bereft of sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - passing NMUSIC, as that guideline says, indicates something "may be notable." It's a solid indication that sources should be available, but it's not a guarantee. ~~Regardless, there's nothing to keep here. Wikipedia is not a band directory, but an encyclopedia that needs material based on reliable sources.~~ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given sources have been added that look to be more than superficial, I'm striking my delete !vote until I can dig into it more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article now has sources. As I have stated before, the majority of coverage will likely be in music press sources from the late 1970s and early 1980s that will not be found from a Google search. In addition to the sources now cited, Rock's Back Pages has an album review and a live review from Sounds, but not being a subscriber I can't see enough to use them here. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with content referenced from multiple reliable sources so there is no longer a valid reason for deletion, also the band pass WP:NMUSIC with three album releases on major labels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2019 (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.