Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay Ray (band)


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fay Ray (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band, does not meet WP:GNG. The only semi-reliable coverage is an AllMusic source, which says that the band was briefly signed to Elektra Records before the record company canned them. An article at this title has already been deleted once by CSD A7 and once by PROD; if the consensus of this discussion is to delete, I would thus recommend salting. signed,Rosguill talk 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt per nom. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. As well as the Allmusic bio, there's coverage in the book Last Shop Standing, and a newspaper article on their 2018 return . It seems likely that print coverage from the early 1980s will also exist. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: the newspaper article Michig mentions above seems to have disappeared from the newspaper's website, but it's archived here . I wasn't aware of this band back in 1982 when I was a teenager in the UK, but I'm intrigued: the fact that they were signed to a major label and had a big-name record producer overseeing them (Gray produced number-one albums by the Police and top ten records by Siouxsie and the Banshees, among others) makes me think Michig is almost certainly right that the UK's music press might have given them some brief coverage at the time, and it's likely the album was reviewed as well. It's frustrating that I'm not in a position at the moment to be able to check back issues of NME or Melody Maker from 1982... however, the three sources mentioned above seem to be just about enough for now to demonstrate that this article is worth keeping. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Artist has own website and band member Tony Travis has a YouTube account (https://www.youtube.com/user/tonytravis?app=desktop) featuring music videos and live performances (can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/user/tonytravis/videos) showing the fact the band has some importance. The band has also re-released their album Contact You and YouTube has recognized this re-release of the album as seen on https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_ntYz8Eqhuzp5liVrYx5kELqW_h5HRV2WM showing that even YouTube does acknowledge the band. --Copyrightpower1337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a YouTube account means absolutely nothing - three of my cousins have YouTube accounts for their songs, but none of them are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * keep article Found their song "Heatwave" mentioned in this Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glekglek (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)  Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. And your first ever edit on Wikipedia was a keep vote? Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do believe that is an important inclusion considering how the song is about nuclear devastation. The lyrics "We watch the mushroom as it rises in a cloud" does refer to mushroom clouds. Along with the lyrics "I didn't kill, I didn't fight, I'll never get home tonight." referring to the civilians who are affected by the nuclear war despite doing nothing to cause the war. The lyrics "We watch the city in it's different glow" refer to the glow of radiation. Thus showing the importance of the inclusion of the band who created the song in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on earth should a song about nuclear war automatically make a band notable? Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep : Found an article on a North Wales news site about the band and the re-release of Contact You as seen here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Michig has already found that source, mentioned in his comment, so that's not a new piece of evidence. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the current split between the WKs (The full Keeps have been either Socks or unjustified arguments) and deletes, I think there's enough disagreement to make it worth a relisting
 * Comment I'm somewhat swayed by Richard3120's and Michig's arguments about the possible existence of offline sources. Other arguments made in favor of keep show a clear lack of understanding of notability guidelines, and if anything hurt the case for keep. signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there any way of finding if their releases ever charted? I tried but could not work it out. Britishfinance (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * no, they never charted, either with singles or albums... you would be able to check this on the Official Chart Company's website. Michig has access to the book of indie charts from the 1980s, so I imagine that he would already have mentioned if they charted there, but it doesn't look like they did that either. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. It seems like a borderline case at best; I will leave to you guys to decide its fate. Britishfinance (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep . Given the above info about offline media, YouTube recognizing the re-released album's audio tracks, having a famous band manager, and being signed to a major record label show the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to continue making arguments in favor of keep, but please limit yourself to one vote. signed,Rosguill talk 23:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but some of your arguments are really poor – YouTube doesn't "recognise" the album's tracks, it's because people have posted the audio to YouTube, and you can find every song ever recorded somewhere on YouTube because a fan has posted it, so that's not much of an argument for notability. And having a famous manager does not make a band notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED – my argument was that having a famous producer made it more likely that reliable sources exist for the band, which is an entirely different thing. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (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.