Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indelicates (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 keep. Consensus is that the band is notable, there is no consensus that the individual albums are notable, consensus is that likely that several are not and the verifiable information would need to be merged. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Indelicates

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The deletion log has seen its share of this article. It was deleted through AFD in 2018, then promptly restored and userfied, and on the same day moved back with the following reason: "no reason for this not to be in mainspace". Way to bypass AFD - though a couple of references were added. Nevertheless, it's essentially the same article as the one which was deleted, so it's technically eligible for WP:CSD#G4, but since two years has passed, a discussion seems proper. This is a procedural nomination first and foremost, but it can be noted that their records have been issued on insignificant labels. (one of which, Sad Gnome, is proposed for deletion.) Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling the following recordings into this discussion:

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs are press releases, links to the band's own website, and a comment by one of the band's members in a BBC News article about something else. There's simply nothing here that would pass the criteria set out at WP:NBAND. Given the edit history highlighted by the nominator, it might be prudent to salt the page, to ensure any future re-creation go through the new page creation process. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band, Redirect albums - This band has some reliable media notice and I don't think the situation is as dire or corrupt as indicated by the nominator and previous voter. The band has received three pretty robust album/song reviews from the reliable PopMatters, including info about their history: [1], [2], [3]. Some of those are linked in the album articles that have also been tied to this AfD. Here is some additional coverage that may or may not be totally reliable, but can be used for more info on the band: [4], [5], [6]. I think the band has enough for a basic stub article. The album articles are too thin and can be redirected to the band. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate the article as it stands asserts weak notability and needs improvement but a cursory search shows the band had enough coverage back in the day to pass at least NBAND #1. In addition to the PopMatters articles already identified, nineteen articles on Digital Spy over a three year period. Some of them, admittedly, are album announcements, but enough are comment, review and interview to be considered non-trivial coverage. And while these are articles not about the band, the BBC clearly also thought the band at least notable enough for comment, more than once, as did The Guardian. While trying to interpret NBAND #6 is a mixed bag at best, it is worth noting that notable artists have contributed to the band's work, with one album featuring lead vocals on several tracks by musicians including Jim Bob of Carter USM and Mikey Georgeson of David Devant & His Spirit Wife. Probably at the weekend I can start building it up using these sources and whatever else I can find, and if someone wants to move it to my userspace pending those improvements, I guess I'd be OK with that. Steve ^T • C 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage here of their album David Koresh Superstar, in World. Also some print source scans here. Some of the mentions here are more trivial, but the coverage in New Statesman, The Guardian and maybe NME is non-trivial. Will hopefully update with more when I find it, but this all feels like enough to assert notability already. Steve ^T • C 06:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further information: included at #72 in the "The Top 100 Albums Of The Quietus' Existence" at The Quietus. Also had a song on the soundtrack of 2012 movie Move (source independent of the movie credits: director Dietrich Brüggemann's blog. Confirmed as such in this article in The Abendzeitung). I think these, as well as the sources already identified and the print sources, show that the band clearly clears the bar of notability, though I don't blame the nominator for thinking otherwise; as someone else pointed out when we were talking about it today—the band "falls into a hole where people expect everything from the 00s to be online and that’s not true." Steve ^T • C 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As said my nomination was mostly procedural, given that it was technically eligible for speedy deletion as recreated content. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair point; that's a nuance I missed when reading the nomination. It was good to have the discussion regardless. Steve ^T • C 08:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band article and the album articles as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion including enough substantial coverage for a pass of WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, with BBC news mentions. One band member is quite notable, Laurence Owen (composer). Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the band article should be kept, but is there consensus about the albums? Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is trickier. I'm working on an updated version of the main article in userspace, but it won't be complete for another couple of days. There is coverage of most of the albums, but I won't know whether summary style should apply here until that's closer to being finished. I'd say redirect for now, and I can always roll that back if I need to. Steve ^T • C 08:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss what to do about the albums.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We have a solid consensus about the band, but this has gotten unnecessarily complicated. My vote above to redirect the albums is probably the reason for the relisting. But note that the band's deletion nomination was originally by Geschichte, but the albums were added by someone else, Dom Kaos. So I wonder if the combined AfD is procedurally legitimate. I recommend declaring the band keep-worthy, and then inviting Dom Kaos to nominate the albums again, individually. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus I invite an admin to close this discussion as "No Consensus". This does the same thing as "keep" (according to WP:AFD/AI) and allows an editor to nominate the albums in a new AfD to avoid a WP:Trainwreck. Alternatively, the admin can close this as a procedural "keep" with a note that this should not prevent a new nomination for the albums. I think The Indelicates passes WP:GNG due to the sources listed above and the coverage it has received in Pop Matters and Digital Spy, among others. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a keep for the band as that is the clear consensus, the albums could be discussed for merger on their talkpages. imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think this should be closed (no preference on the method; either "keep" or "no consensus" have the same result) and we leave what to do with the albums to the editorial process. Steve ^T • C 11:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.