Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Witch


 * 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Icarus Witch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Two albums on a record label that is bluelinked, but it's a redirect and doesn't appear particularly notable itself. Black Kite 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page (a member of the band)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs)

And I am also nominating their album:
 * Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all The label is of marginal notability at best, so I'd say delete simply because there seem to be no sources pertaining to their notability. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. There seems to be plenty of coverage for this band including articles or interviews here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here; album reviews here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here; news coverage here, here and here. Allmusic biography here, album reviews here and here. --Bardin (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now for the key question: How many of these "references" are being used in the article to support the assertions per WP:V and WP:RS? Note that blogs are not reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. As of twelve seconds before I posted this, the answer was "none." Weak delete for now and it is clear the band has local following at this point. B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is not reliable? Blabbermouth.net is not reliable? I beg to differ. --Bardin (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are blogs; therefore not reliable sources per WP:RS. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not blogs. None of the sites I linked to are blogs. Please look a tad bit more carefully. --Bardin (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting any more time arguing the point. Look at the very top of the page of this allmusic.com page to which you have provided a link. You might want to revisit the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources before further belaboring that point. B.Wind (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch. For someone so mistaken, you are so arrogant. The very top of that page is a link to a blog. If you actually click on it, you will be taken to a different address. I guess in your mind the New York Times cannot be a reliable source either since they too have a blog. The LA Times has a blog. The Wall Street Journal has a blog. Like all of these entities, Allmusic is a reliable source that happens to have a blog. The link that I provided is not the blog itself. Before you condescendingly suggest others revisit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I suggest you take a look at WP:MUSIC and note that the All Music Guide is in fact identified on that very guideline as a reliable source. --Bardin (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Cbrown1023    talk   16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Allmusic is a reliable source, and coupled with the other links provided, I believe this lot meets WP:BAND quite easily. sparkl!sm hey! 09:28, 12 May 2008 (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.