Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forms (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Forms (band)

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

Non-notable band with less than a passing mention in a blip on a website. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Note Icarus (album), which would qualify for a speedy if the band page is deleted. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A couple piddling claims, but nothing to pass WP:BAND. Apparently somebody won't let me tag anything for speedy deletion anymore. I feel unloved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me, honest, but I would have declined the speedy as well, because this is not an uncontroversial deletion—not just because of the Steve Albini production connection, but more so because a glance at a Google News search suggests that some research is required to determine the band's notability. Is anyone interested in helping me out in adding some sources? Spread the love around. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, so I've added six citations, just some of the many sources that have written about this band: The New York Observer, the Omaha World-Herald, The Morning Call, Pitchfork Media, PopMatters, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (The band gained attention for having had Steve Albini produce their albums, but also for the glowing reviews from music critics.) The subject meets the general notability guideline, or criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While there don't seem to be any big names in those sources, the number and geographical distribution seem to bring the article up to inclusion. Well found. As I don't feel too strongly either way at this point, I'll just switch to Neutral. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, passes WP:MUSIC for the ref's P.E. added. Here's am Allmusic one too . I gotta ask, does anyone actually search for sources before nomination or commenting???? The Pitchfork and Allmusic ones took all of 30 sec to find.   Esradekan Gibb    "Klat" 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to wonder if anyone who refers to WP:MUSIC has actually read it before commenting HARHARHAR. Blogs don't fall under it, internet-only media is specifically excluded. Print and TV count. While they might count as RS (maybe), they don't establish notability. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is not a blog, and it has often been used to help to build a case for notability for articles about musicians. And Pitchfork Music is an Internet magazine "with the clout of Rolling Stone or Spin". (Time, Canadian edition, April 4, 2005. Vol. 165, Iss. 14; p. 50). WP:MUSIC deliberately says "This criterion includes published works in all forms." Sources are not discounted automatically in notability discussions just because they are published on the Internet. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage for notability.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 9 July 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.