Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feedtime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (following improvements to article on 23 May 2007) Orderinchaos 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Feedtime
Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) --VS talk 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- --VS talk 12:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No independent sources outside Allmusic.com - it existed, but that is all.--Edwin Herdman 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)- Delete The article heavily relies on name dropping to feign notability. --Aarktica 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. Caknuck 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have improved the article to include more sources and assert notability. WP:BAND says that a band is notable if it "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". feedtime released three albums internationally on Rough Trade Records, one of the most important indie labels of all time, so I think they unambiguously pass WP:BAND. SethTisue 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Based on the added references and evidence of album releases. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Has an entry on Allmusic confirming three albums on Rough Trade. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Showing my ignorance, perhaps, but just because the records are available from Rough Trade doesn't confer notability. Surely the fact that the band has three albums doesn't confer notability by itself, and unless the label's other signed acts are all considered notable (say one of the big labels) there's no reason to imagine it gains notability by association. --Edwin Herdman 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the implication of saying a band has three albums on Rough Trade is that the band was probably popular, and thus was probably talked about it reliable sources (which is what notability is all about). Yes it is a guess on notability to say "keep: 3 records", but it is also a guess to say "delete: we haven't found any sources yet". It is shame we have to guess, AfD is often like this unfortunately.--Commander Keane 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Showing my ignorance, perhaps, but just because the records are available from Rough Trade doesn't confer notability. Surely the fact that the band has three albums doesn't confer notability by itself, and unless the label's other signed acts are all considered notable (say one of the big labels) there's no reason to imagine it gains notability by association. --Edwin Herdman 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Band was notable in the 1980s Australian punk scene. Meets WP:BAND owing to releases on Rough Trade and Amphetamine Reptile. Cnwb 06:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under Category 5, then? I'm going to assume that those are "notable" independent labels, which seems reasonable. Alright, I'm changing my vote to Keep. --Edwin Herdman 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edwin, Rough Trade is perhaps one of the most notable 'indy' labels of the last 20-30 years. Cnwb 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:Music on basis of albums released (which appear to be still available). A1octopus 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, meets our criteria. John Vandenberg 12:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, satisfies WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 23:55, 25 May 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.
