Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam Powered Giraffe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Night  fury  08:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Steam Powered Giraffe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Band fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. The majority of the sources are affiliated to the subject and those that aren't do not prove notability. The article reads like a fan site. Domdeparis (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article could probably be better sourced (and I can do some independent research on that when I get some time; I've had a recent death in the family) and rewritten, but they pass WP:NBAND, as they have definitely "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". They are currently one of the most well-known and popular bands in the Steampunk subculture. If memory serves, they have also won several regional music competitions; I'll do some research on that as well. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources need to be added to show this. As it is the article doesn't prove this. And sorry to hear about your loss. Domdeparis (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you will make the effort. I remember a few weeks ago there was an article deleted for a stand alone member of this band, and at the time I questioned the validity of this parent article, but acknowledged I know next to nothing about the steampunk subculture. Since then I've done a little bit of self-educating. This band indeed likely seems they are important enough to the genre to merit an article, but--as the nomination states--it is coming up short the way it is currently written and sourced. I agree time and effort need to be put in to bring it up to muster, so I'll refrain from i-voting until then. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, substantial biography on Allmusic and a couple other notable sources in the article, though the fancruft does need trimming. They did appear to chart on Top Independent Albums, but Billboard is giving me a 503 error right now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but Allmusic biographies are mostly user generated content and not a biography or a review written by staff but from information submitted for inclusion. As it says on Allmusic it is a comprehensive database and from what I gather it has an inclusive policy and does not select biographies on notability criteria. I would be more interested to know which sources from the article you consider demonstrate notability. Domdeparis (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * AllMusic is a mixed bag and tough to gauge notability from a profile there alone. At one time it was, in fact, a source with proper editorial oversight and a profile there was a pretty good indicator of what could translate into wikipedia notability. The company was purchased 8 years ago by Rovi (now owned by TiVo) which made its goal to cross-pollinate All Music's content with their database. The point is to provide artist information on any artist that has a product for sale in their database. And, yes, their website contains instructions for artists and publicists to submit content to help create these profiles. Bottom line: the merits of AllMusic profiles need to be assessed on a case by case basis; it is possible for an artist to have an entry there while at the same time failing to meet any other kind of WP:MUSIC standard. I will add that the profile for this particular artist seems to reads like something written with considerable help from submitted, promotional materials rather than an independently researched entry. Take that for what it's worth. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They still do seem to have made a Billboard chart, which does fit into one more criterion of WP:BAND. (Again, Billboard's website is being a butt right now and I can't pull much up.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I am very much mistaken the independent albums chart does not appear here Record_charts and so is not applicable for WP:NBAND but I may have misread the criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Far too many unreliable sources, however (Facebook, Blogspot, band's own website/Tumblr, and so on). sixty nine   • speak up •  05:15, 25 October 2017 (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.