Talk:Fossils (band)

References section
The complete absence of inline references in this article, renders a separate References section pointless. Thus, the section has been merged with the External links section. TathD (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the History section
It appears (as on the date of writing) that the entire History section of this Article -as it stands on this date- has been copied to the History section of the newly launched Fossils official website, possibly with/without very minor edits.

Users & Editors, before complaining, are requested to note that this Article is by no means a plagiarism/rip-off of the content of the Official website, but the matter (to one's great joy) is in fact, just the reverse.

{P.S. This particularly vain editor is proud that at least the current structure & appearance of the History section was his handiwork, as achieved through the filtration & revision of valuable data from earlier versions by greatly knowledgeable gentlemen/ladies, and hopes the Spirit of Wiki will somehow forgive him.}            TathD (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Need more references
We need to add more references in this article. With regards,  Gui tar ist ( talk| contributions) June 29, 2024

VANDALISM WARNING!
It's to be notified to all the editors of this article to NOT TO REMOVE any TAG without attaining its message. It'd be counted as vandalism. Already it's done without meeting the argument. Hope it won't happen again. Thanks. —M ayeenul Islam  (TALK) 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability and Rupam Islam issue
The only strong mention in this article is: Rupam Islam won a National Film Award (Silver Lotus or Rajat Kamal) in the Best Male Playback Singer category from the Government of India for his work in the film Mahanagar @ Kolkata. (reference) And this strong line is showing Notability of Mr. Rupam Islam, not of Fossils. I repeat, performing here and there is not a proof of notability of Fossils, according to Wiki's Notability guidelines. Please consider the guideline and add some references to make "Fossils" notable. —M ayeenul Islam  (TALK) 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, a reliable secondary source like Rolling Stone India has a lengthy feature out on them, and other reliable secondary sources like The Times of India and The Telegraph (Kolkata) regularly publish updates on them. So I find or rather choose to "presume" (in the notability guideline sense) that it meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. What the article needs, instead of a dire Notability warning hanging over it, are more and more citations (the vernacular press needs to be dug into for quality references) and well researched sections on musical style and influences. TathD (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid, the motive of notability is still misunderstood here. I'm not 100% aware about Rolling Stone magazine, and its coverage&mdash; in contradist approach, I'm taking it. But the coverages in Telegraph and Times of India are not notable. I'd like to take your attention to the point #1. Please note the sentence except for the following: and the following sentences are clearly mentioning that, Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. is not acceptable as a point of notability.
 * Ref 6 & 13 is a self-source, as Fossils announced its release, just like a press coverage.
 * Ref 7 is posing noting to hail for Fossils (in article: Fossils 3 would go on to win)
 * I beg your pardon, my internet connection is not so faster to search all of 'em. I can, just, request you to please match all the criteria of the Notability guidelines with the sources provided. I've shown two for you. It'd be better if you compare your strong points of this article with the points of the notability guidelines. Hope you want a question-less article to Wikipedia.
 * Thanks. —M ayeenul Islam  (TALK) 17:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a separate Notability guideline for topics related to Music. Lets just do a summary point by point evaluation of where the topic of this article stands in relation to the same. As far as criterion #1 is concerned, the Rolling Stone India feature is a good start. (Personally, I'd like to think that if you deserve a feature in a Rolling Stone issue, you're notable enough for Wikipedia.) I'm sure there are lots more of the kind to be found in the Bengali media, but I have no idea how to search their websites; maybe somebody with the requisite knowledge should take up the job. #2 and #3 are not applicable to India. It can be said that this goes some way in meeting #4, but then again this point is supposed to be disputed. I'm not sure what to make of #5, I'd say that Asha Audio is a major regional label (judging by its roster of performers), but how does one establish this. Under the cicumstances, #6 would be difficult to establish. This TOI story may be considered to have established #7. Regarding #8, I doubt there's a major music award that a Bengali rock band in India can win, although the win for best non-film album in the Anandalok Awards can stake a claim. Rupam Islam's National Award winning performance featured contributions by two former Fossils band members, but this does appear too tangential to count. #9 - Fossils band members have actually judged competitors in major music competitions, editors would do good to find links to prove this. Here's one. I can state how #10 is valid for the topic, but apparently this would require pain staking establishment of Notability case by individual case - I can see where that would end up. #11 and #12 are quite applicable, but again, I'm not sure how to provide proof from TV and radio; maybe someone in the know can point out the way. All that said, I still don't think Notability itself should be a major issue here; by sources provided so far, the topic clearly carries a lot of weight in view of #7. What the article does need are lots more citations to prove some of the more unsubstantiated statements contained in it. I've tried to eliminate the article's excessive reliability on primary sources with more references to secondary ones. TathD (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your long review with patience. In some cases, Fossils is out of my matter, as I'm from a different country, other than India. So I can't understand the weight of the references cited with much seriousness. But after some convincing references, I can assume that Fossils is somewhat notable. So I'd love to withdraw the Notability tag from this article after this discussion. And the way you are trying to enrich the article now, is a good step. By the way, please don't cite any reference from any blog. Blog is not a reliable source to be cited in Wikipedia. Thanks again for your patient reply. Good luck! —Mayeenul Islam</i> (TALK) 08:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)