Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manvils (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 no consensus. No consensus against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The Manvils
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Poorly sourced article about a band with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires concrete evidence that they have accomplished something significant (charting hits, notable music awards, etc.), referenced to independent third party coverage in real media. But the strongest notability claim here is that some of their music was used in film and television, which (a) is not sourced, and (b) is the one claim in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" proviso. And for referencing, it relies entirely on marketing content self-published by their own record labels, with no evidence of any media coverage shown at all. Note that I'm also bunding the two albums of theirs which have Wikipedia articles, both of which are referenced solely to AllMusic directory entries that just provide the track listing without any form of written review by one of AllMusic's professional critics -- but to the extent that AllMusic can be a useful or notability-assisting source, it hinges on the written analysis, not the track listing per se. Nothing stated in any of these articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, keep it I suppose. It's true that their albums appear to be self-published (looks like Sandbag Records is just them). That's not a good sign, at all. They do not meet meet NBAND, which puts them behind the eight-ball.


 * But... here is a full album review at The Georgia Straight which has an article. Reading the article, Georgia Straight looks notable enough to count. So there's one in-depth source. Then there is this review, one paragraph but a meaty one at PopMatters. PopMatters also has an article and also looks notable enough to count. So there's your WP:GNG right there FWIW. Here is the Globe and Mail with a short review, and the Globe and Mail is a big deal. There's more at their press kit.. Oh and here is a interview, has a little bit (not much) which to fill out the article if anyone cares to.


 * So now we're piling on with GNG sources, and the band existed for 15 years (and counting), so it's not complete ephemera, and then there's a couple other peripheral things... soundtrack for Never Cry Werewolf which is blulinked, granted it's a straight-to-TV B movie, but still... I don't know if a non-zero number of people will care about them 50 or 100 years from now. But considering that they've been on the big city scene long enough to have a presence and put out tendrils and influences and intersections and relationships, maybe. Hard to say, but since they meet the GNG fairly handily, I'd say keep the article.


 * Get rid of the individual album articles tho. Prefer merge, but that's work so delete OK.


 * (Another way to look at it, tho, is that they've been around for 15 years and no major or indy label has troubled to sign them. I think meeting the GNG trumps that, but others may reasonably differ.) Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2021 (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.