Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild beasts (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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wild beasts (2nd nomination)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

New English band. The article was deleted before for lack of notability but with the new attention from BBC6 the article was remodeled and recreated with consensus from deletion review. So it is now back here to decide whether the new information is sufficient for the band to meet WP:MUSIC. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst I was wavering on delete, on top of the Guardian review they've been signed to the same record label as Franz Ferdinand and the Arctic Monkeys as of this month. The signs are there that this band is going places and with music I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt - at least with musicians you can be fairly sure of secondary sources appearing as soon as they make a splash. QuagmireDog 12:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Having signed with Domino Records would have pushed them into "keep" territory for me, but the label's official site makes no mention of it, nor can I find mention of it anywhere else. Delete until having been signed is verified. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as author - The major claims that the band meet WP:MUSIC is the article in the guardian newspaper and being put on the BBC 6Music  playlist. Just being signed by domino records doesn't mean they meet WP:MUSIC, they would have to release 2 albums on their label to do this  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - (1) All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Per Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other to ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article now has several cited works, at least two of which appear to be the required non-trivial published works.  As a second reason for meeting Wikipedia:Notability, the article now appears to be a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic.  Thus, the article appears to meet Notability policy requirements.  Since the article appears to meet this policy, I believe it inherently meets the WP:MUSIC guidance that depends from that policy. (2 AfD#1) AfD#1 concerns about not meeting WP:MUSIC have been addressed in the article.  (3 DR#1) Deletion Review's concerns regarding actual present notability and WP:MUSIC have been addressed in the article.  (4 DR#2) Deletion Review #2's request that actual citations to information be added to article have been addressed in the article. (5)  As QuagmireDog points out, this band is going places and media interest in this topic seems more likely than not.  I agree that signing with Domino Records needs to be verified or removed from the article, but I the topic appears to meet Notability without it. (6) In view of the above, this article should be kept because it does comply with Wikipedia policy, there is foreseeable media interest in this topic, and Wikipedians do have enough interest in this article to address the concerns brought up in the AfD#1, DR#1, DR#2, and this AfD#2. -- Jreferee 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article in Guardian and presence on 6Music passes WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 09:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to pass WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a good point about the Domino signing, I can't find any reference to it at all on the Domino site. I think it's an important point, not just in that particular nugget of info but also the wider perception of the article. I've just sent Domino an email asking whether this is the case. It's anybody's guess whether a reply will be received at all, let alone during the remainder of this AFD, regardless I'll post anything of interest here or on the talk page. QuagmireDog 20:42, 23 January 2007 (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.