Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvett Fogg

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velvett Fogg[edit]

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

Article with no reliable independent sources, written by a member of the band. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Only very marginal mention I can find is here, but I have a lingering hesitancy to delete for some reason. ceranthor 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I usually avoid AfD debates about new bands, because about 99% are non-notable and should be deleted ASAP. It's all so predictable. In this case, though, we have an article about a band active 41 years ago. This is genuine musical history. There are 13 hits in Google Books, of varying quality. We know one of the musicians went on to undisputed notability. I know notability is not pre-inherited. However, I have the feeling that this article should stay, if we can figure out how to make it fly within our guidelines. It would be sad to lose the effort that went into this. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned by Cullen328. Article already has a few independent sources (such as the BBC page), and the album is reviewed at AllMusic[1]. Any COI problems can be fixed by editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just about notable, I think, otherwise merge to Tony Iommi, whose article doesn't mention them. This doesn't warrant outright deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked in the nomination shows that this band has entries in several print encyclopedias from well-established publishers, so it is clearly an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:38, 13 November 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.