Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Snapdragons
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. RFerreira (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Snapdragons[edit]
- The Snapdragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable band. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lack of sourcing is not a deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Corvus Cornix. Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. Undisputably, the band was very much notable in their time, being championed by indie music guru John Peel. This is referenced in the article—they performed a live set for his show. I would also say that their 'discography' is much more impressive than many bands and is easily verifiable, for example at music database Discogs, [1]. Discogs also shows that two of their tracks were considered to be outstanding enough to be included on indie music 'Best Of' albums. Despite the intervening years, their music continues to be discussed on forum and blog sites and their records traded daily on eBay (three items offered today on eBay.co.uk). Brittle heaven (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any sources showing that they were notable "in their time" would solve the nominator's only valid issue, since Notability is not temporary. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While "other stuff exists" is not considered a good reason to contest a proposed deletion, thousands of band-related articles do exist, many of which are not nearly as well written as this one. The entry contains a wealth of verifiable detail which can be corroborated on-line or through music reference books. Inline citations may be provided at some point in time, but insistence that the article cannot now exist without such citations creates an extremely high standard which would eliminate the great majority of all Wikipedia entries.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Corvus Cornix. Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. Undisputably, the band was very much notable in their time, being championed by indie music guru John Peel. This is referenced in the article—they performed a live set for his show. I would also say that their 'discography' is much more impressive than many bands and is easily verifiable, for example at music database Discogs, [1]. Discogs also shows that two of their tracks were considered to be outstanding enough to be included on indie music 'Best Of' albums. Despite the intervening years, their music continues to be discussed on forum and blog sites and their records traded daily on eBay (three items offered today on eBay.co.uk). Brittle heaven (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lack of sourcing is not a deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable band that received significant national airplay, toured extensively and released two albums. If the only issue here is lack of inline references, there are tags that could be added specifically for that reason, rather than nominating for deletion.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (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.