Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Farrertones

Farrertones

 * This is an old FAC nomination for an article since removed as band vanity. It's now kept as a historical record. - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. This is a group which are, while little-known anywhere else, very well known in their hometown of Tawmorth, New South Wales, and deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. --Jb-adder 08:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. No references, not nearly expansive enough, weasely ("widespread applause")... overall, nowhere near featured article level. (Comment: I'm from Victoria and have never heard of them, are they really notable enough for an article?) [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 11:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit, I have included no references; the reason for this is because all the information came direct from a member of the group, not from some source book. But weasely...be specific, please! (Plus, if you have an objection with the article being on there, please, don't address it here; put it on my talk page instead.) --Jb-adder 12:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "gained widespread applause" is weasely. Has there been any national poll conducted where the Farrertones came out as a premier group? As I said, I'm Australian myself and have never in my life heard of the Farrertones, not even during the Olympics.
 * "becoming a hit in many local schools and conferences" gives no evidence of how many schools, if any, saw the Farrertones as a "hit".
 * My main objection is the lack of references (if, as you say, it's all anecdotal, then it has no place on the Wikipedia), but also the fact that it's an extremely short article both in size and scope. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 14:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - As band vanity articles go, its pretty well done, but this article would probably just barely squeak by a Vote for Deletion on the basis of notability. ZERO google hits....As well as the issues pointed out by Plattopus. 13:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. No references. 119 16:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure notability is as big an issue as verifiability. Object unless enough gets published on this group to make it verifiable.  If it can be verified, and it's well-written, then I don't have a problem with their obscurity. Dave (talk) 16:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. A rather perplexing article. It definetly gives the impression that the subject is not really notable, but real problem is the lack of reference (I can't find anything about them). If they published no records, I don't really see why they deserve an article, unless in conjunction with the Sydney Olympics means that they actually performed at a Sydney 2000 event, or recorded an official song for such an event (which I seriously doubt). Phils 17:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, no references. There is factually incorrect info, as this band have only appeared on one single getting the name of that single wrong is inexcusable. Finally I think this article would struggle getting past VfD, and as such should not be considered as a Featured Article Candidate. Rje 18:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)