Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Damn (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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 10:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

God Damn (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article (re-)created in violation of WP:COI guideline, likely by label One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Wild Palms (band) and my talk page for some background. —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Much improved by and others, can be kept now, thank you all. —Kusma (t·c) 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable. It would be better for articles to be created by editors independent of the band or their record company but unless an article is irredeemably promotional it's not necessarily a reason to delete it. There's enough coverage around from good sources to have a well sourced article. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is good to delete articles created by editors with a financial interest to discourage such creations (even if it is fighting against windmills). Anyway, so far the article only consists of promotional quotes, so nothing is lost by deleting it and starting from scratch. —Kusma (t·c) 08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The quotes in the article come from independent sources, and the article also includes basic information about the band and a discography, so I think you're misrepresenting it by stating that it only consists of 'promotional quotes'. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with here. This is simply the hyperbolic style in which music journalism is written today (at least in this particular field). And if you think about it, a quote like "capable of igniting a spark in your gut that’ll burn until there’s nothing left" does tell you about the style of music you are dealing with just as readily as a more intellectual and detached analysis ("angry, fast-paced and rhythmically compelling rock music") would – and the latter would simply be an artificial idiom for Wikipedia to use, given that nobody else writes this way about this kind of music. Andreas  JN 466 17:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to fail WP:BAND for noteworthiness. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is clearly not the case. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as I'm not seeing as much sourcing as there could be and my searches found nothing better (although the name is no help for searching). SwisterTwister   talk  07:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Try searching '"god damn" vultures' - onviously notable from the first few pages of results. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, unquestionably notable. Feature in The Guardian: . Coverage in Yorkshire Evening Post: Clash: . Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:  Austin Chronicle mentions SXSW appearance:  Coverage in Italian music site Outune.net:  Etc. If the article author is doing this as part of his job, he should promptly disclose that professional relationship, per the WMF terms of use, take scrupulous care to write neutral text faithfully summarising sources (ideally having someone look their work over) and have the book thrown at them if they don't, but it's not a reason to delete articles on notable bands. Andreas  JN 466 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: decidedly stated as notable (musical festival appearances including SXSW) and has sustainable sources, especially The Guardian. All the 'Reception" quotes are thankfully formatted as quotes and sourced to their writers. Only issue for me is linkfarm for social networking sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylbecatulous (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 September 2015

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayen466. There is also some coverage from PopMatters and NME. Everymorning (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep given the substantial improvements in the article, and the band's clear notability demonstrated by the sources cited by others here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The group, as sated above, has received the kind of coverage that justifies an article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:36, 27 September 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.