Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastard Noise


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Bastard Noise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been around for ever without a single ref. The text seems to provide no special claim to notability, and as it stands it fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:A7 -- Non-Dropframe   talk   23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The founder seems more notable than the band, but there's still coverage.  They seem to have an extensive catalog, and I've located several reviews of their work:, , , .  Also a few interviews and such: , , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Any significant coverage in WP:RS? Also the article says many of their recordings were self-released. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the history of the band, and it's not easy to find facts online. But they got reviewed by Spin, CMJ, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Punknews.org, which is enough for WP:BAND #1.  I don't know what a "more important indie label" is, but they apparently released albums on Relapse Records and Alternative Tentacles, both of which I would think satisfy #5.  Also, this is perhaps contentious, but they seem to have originated or had a hand in originating powerviolence, a genre (see  from Vice; also  from The Quietus and  from San Antonio Current).  That would maybe satisfy #7.  They have no hope of satisfying the other criteria, but they seem to be well-known and respected within their niche.  If you're wanting an article in Rolling Stone about their history, no, I can't find that.  I can do more digging to find articles about their history, but I don't think these are available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep simply because of the listed sources. SwisterTwister   talk  06:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per sources provided - Notability does seem to be there by a bare minimum!. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall  talk  07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Discussion was "relisted" twice by on Sept. 15--the first listed it on the daily log for that day, the second one commented it out.  Fixed now. -- Finngall   talk  07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage identified is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.