Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saros (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 Delete. Nakon 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Saros (band)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable band; Speedy tag pulled because band has a drummer from a barely (if at all) notable band (Weakling) that is only notable for having a guitarist from another band. Article makes no other assertion of notability, and cites no reliable sources. CastAStone//(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This chaining of notability is a bridge too far for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Switch to neutral. Some sources on the subject have been collected, and although they are either not strictly secondary sources (no interpetation), or I can't find out the reliablility, or significance of some sources, coupled with the notability by the letter of WP:BAND, I don't feel delete is the right choise anymore. I'm still not quite sure, so neutral for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn and per Martijn Hoekstra. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[This is a reply from the author of the disputed article]

Look - you placed an unfilled internal link to the band Saros from the Weakling entry - I merely filled in the gap - i.e. - improved the referencing on the site. As far as the references, they are no different than 100's of others I see for bands on the site. I think you're being slightly overzealous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, thank you for your contribution. There are a few issues with this comment though: First: That it was a red link should mean that there should be an article on the subject, but that is not always the case. This is, afterall, a wiki. Second: strictly speaking, this article adheres to the letter of WP:BAND, in that it is a band with a member of a notable band playing in it. On that ground, the article on Weakling can claim notability. However, this bandmember chaining notability carries in my oppinion a bit too far, and I believe it goes against the spirit of the mentioned guideline. Third: You claim there are other articles that are "just as bad, or worse" to paraphrase your words. Again, as this is a wiki, that might just mean they should be deleted to. It is actualy a notable reason in deletion discussions that should be avoided, see here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I hope this clears things up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - but I think you mistook my meaning. I never said "just as bad or worse" - I simply noted that that's the sources were no different than many band entries.  You made the statement of valuation which I believe has tainted this discussion - especially in your "chaining" of notability.  If the band is mentioned but the content is missing - then the band deserves to (read "should") be properly referenced if they are being referred to in said article.  I merely filled in the blanks left on the site weather the "should" have been filled or no.    Not sure how to properly sign these replies - so not trying to mystify my replies.  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Are you sure you mean referenced in the same way as Wikipedia uses it? That is, linking to external independent reliable sources to verify the content? At any rate, I am not so much questioning the verifiablility of the article, but more the notability of the band. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. In searching to try to decide on this article, I came across a fair amount of coverage of the band, some of which I've added to the article. The main problem for me is that I have doubts over the quality of the coverage - this isn't my kind of music, so I don't know how highly-regarded the sites concerned are.--Michig (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well - at this point I'll leave it up to those more experienced with the site and move on. I stand by the entry as is, but will wait to add anything more pending its approval / deletion.Harbard the Ancient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - I promised to back off but I just browsed through the category of Musical groups established in 2004 and it seems really, really obvious to me that there's at least some amount of bias at work here. Not even a handful of any of the bands listed in that category are any more notable than the band whose entry is under question. Many haven't had as much coverage as far as live / record reviews or this info is missing from the entry. It's also obvious from the tone of the original objections that those voting for deletion aren't very familiar with the genre of said band and moreover are inimical to said genre on the whole. So, I don't feel the cry for deletion is really objective. OK - now I'm done whining and will move on. Harbard the Ancient (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is basicly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is constructive, as long as you are talking about the other stuff. If you can point me to other bands that fail WP:BAND, I'll be glad to take them to AfD. Do it on my talkpage though, this AfD is not the place for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, but I need to leave this entry and subject alone for now. BUT - one last point - the band has been covered in Thrasher magazine last year in the print edition which is distributed world wide - but was only able to find a link to the text of said interview (included in entry). OK - now I AM DONE!!! Harbard the Ancient (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep. Notable enough to have reviews and interviews in at least a few publications. No reason to delete this page. --Tikilounge (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 18:19, 18 January 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.