Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolo Tomassi (2nd nomination)


 * 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 all. Flowerparty ☀ 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolo Tomassi
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for lack of secondary sources since 9/08. No sources found, no real assertation of notability save for one album on a bluelink label and a couple trivial mentions. G4 by another user declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the band and at least some of the releases. "No sources found" doesn't seem credible given that this live review from NME and this Drowned in Sound feature are on the first page of Google results for "Rolo Tomassi". Over the next few pages of results the following were found:, , , , , , , , , , , and from Google News: , , , , . I could list more coverage. One or two of these dodgy AFD nominations could be taken as simple mistakes, but these are starting to look like bad faith from the nominator.--Michig (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually do make a good faith effort to search. I would strongly suggest adding those sources, because this current revision is a sorry excuse of an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is poor, but the subject is obviously notable. We judge the notability of subjects here, not the quality of articles. If you didn't do a Google search, where did you look?--Michig (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did use Google, but all I found were interviews and podcasts. I was under the impression that interviews weren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the G4 speedy tag as both references in the article had been created since the last AfD and additionally in that time the band has released an album. This to my was enough of a change in circumstance to warrant a new AfD especially as at least one of the references appears to be an article in a well known and reliable source.  Dpmuk (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the previous AFD was over two years ago and references are from later dates the G4 should not have been added and you were right to remove it. A new AFD should not have followed without WP:BEFORE being adhered to. It's obvious that in the time since the first AFD the band have received a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources, and these were very easy to find.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all Several of the sources provided do not establish notability (e.g. a performance review from a local paper) and the ones that do are pretty sparse (this is a start, but it's not possible to create an article based on this write-up in NME.) Without better documentation of their notability (not just their existence), there is not justification for keeping these articles. As pointed out above, there definitely are sources to prove that they exist, but interviews and podcasts exist for all kinds of musical acts that fail WP:NM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See? This is what I was talking about. Indeed, I did find most of what Michig also found, but I deemed that content as being insubstantial for building an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe concentrate on the sources that do establish notability? The existence of sources that do not establish notability is not a valid reason for deletion. this is unequivocally significant coverage of the band in a reliable source. Local coverage may not be enough on its own but this is also significant coverage in a reliable source. Could you perhaps clarify why you feel these do not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources?:, , , , , , (which states that the band "were recently crowned one of the UK's 10 hottest new bands by Kerrang! magazine", suggesting coverage also exists in Kerrang!), .--Michig (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A search at the Kerrang! site indicates significant coverage in the 18/03/2009 issue, more coverage here, and the magazine even included a Rolo Tomassi poster with the 20/05/2009 issue - somehow I don't think a major magazine like this is going to give away posters of bands that are not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two sources you cited are fine, but both of the Metro sources seem to be only announcing an upcoming concert. Those Kerrang! sources seem to be merely concert reviews. I still think this is a borderline case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Metro sources announce forthcoming shows and include considerable independent discussion of the band. If the first two sources are fine, surely the article meets both WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and the discussion should be closed?--Michig (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't, since Koavf !voted delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep I used BING as a test and found several more cites. Not just album reviews. I generally agree with Hammer (as everyone who likes otters should) but I suggest 'keep' in this instance. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Michig here, the sources given demonstrate notability, and WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl!sm hey! 21:43, 24 June 2009 (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.