Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ocean Fracture


 * 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) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ocean Fracture

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

Non-notable band. I would have speedied this except it has had a fair number of editors involved. However, I still can't see that it meets notability criteria. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the pages for the band's albums/singles: The Sunmachine And The Ocean and Cesarium/Black Lung Optimism. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the three items of press coverage quoted in The Sunmachine And The Ocean can be verified, then the band will likely pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, none of the items CAN be verified by internet, as the first two sources (Rock Sound Magazine and Big Cheese Magazine) do not archive material online, and no results can be found at a search of Kerrang!. Unless someone has access to these actual magazine issues, the claims to notability of this article remain unverifiable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources already supplied in the article (and album article). No where in WP:RS or WP:V does it say that they have to be available online, only that they are reliable, third-party, and published. From WP:RS; "it is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet."   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You'll have to pardon my ignorance here, I'm fairly new to all this. Since the articles have been put up for deletion, I've inserted a few more relevant references into each, including national radio station playlists and (as per the previous editor's comment which states that references do not strictly require to be archived online) further issues of publications featuring relevant information. I don't know whether the previous editor's "keep" closes the debate or not, so if someone could be sympathetic to a Wikipedia newbie and let me know, I would appreciate it. :p Thanks. User:Verklemmt —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Taking the sources for The Sunmachine in good faith, we have coverage in some notable magazines (esp. Kerrang) for the album which establishes notability for the band, though perhaps weakly so. I'm staying on the safe side, the side of inclusion. Note to Verklemmt--no, it's not over yet; more editors can still weigh in. When you add sources to the article, make them look good by using templates and by looking for sources that editors have access to online. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As above Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:33, 21 April 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.