Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadpoles (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 no consensus. North America1000 03:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Tadpoles (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable references to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly hi! 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage exists to satisfy notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am curious, what coverage are you refering to? All the article lists are external links to related sites, myspace, facebook, Youtube and a directory. That constitutes no coverage.  Please read Reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I used Google. What's in the article isn't solely what we judge it on. Do you seriously think I've been here for 10 years, made tens of thousdands of edits and been given admin rights without reading Reliable sources? --Michig (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was trivially easy to find a biography and five album reviews from Allmusic, coverage from Factsheet Five, an extensive album review from Pitchfork Media, as well as other news articles covering the band to some extent. Considering that most of the band's activities were pre-internet that's a pretty good indication of notability, and that in addition to this more print coverage is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment In looking for coverage, I discovered a book published by Betascript which copied the 2010 version of this article and enough other articles from Wikipedia to make up 68 pages. Needless to say to long-time editors, that is not a reliable source. See Verifiability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep: A very weak keep. I looked into some of the sources that Michig brought up above and was able to find some. There's an in-depth Pitchfork review and a mention of the Factsheet Five article in an unreliable user-made website (I'm sure it exists in print sources somewhere). There's a passing mention of them in a book about psychedelic rock . Overall, I'm inclined to keep but barely. Nomader (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now and restart later if better as I simply found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister   talk  05:46, 4 October 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.