Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behold... The Arctopus

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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behold... The Arctopus

This article was speedied by myself once before, and restored by Gwalla. I spoke to him/her about it, and agreed to AfD this article. Anyway, I digress. The article passes WP:BAND, but is not notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. —« ANIMUM » 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~A good argument could be made for a speedy under A7~~, but there's no notability here whatsoever. It's one of the drawbacks of being an underground band, I guess. Sidatio 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)(edit: Not A7 after all, but still far from notable. Edited by Sidatio 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The external links are all to directory websites or myspace. The band lacks the kind of notability intended by WP:HOLE (an instructive essay), and the article reads like some kind of fansite. Shalom ^Hello 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:BAND. In fact if you follow the links in here, especially Colin Marston You will find a whole slew of articles that need to be deleted because they do not meet WP:BAND. Gorkymalorki 19:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see it meeting WP:BAND even if all the claims were sourced, which they aren't. I even think that the initial speedy was defensible as there is no assertion of meeting WP:BAND which is the measure of notability. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew based on the fact that it had been restored before from a speedy - wasn't clear on whether or not it could be re-tagged under those circumstances. Sidatio 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links from the band's forum (http://www.smnnews.com/board//showthread.php?t=153257) and again here on the drummer's professional site (http://charliezeleny.com/) list dates for two lengthy US tours - doesn't that mean they satisfy the notability guidelines? I apologize if I am not following the proper protocol in posting this, but I haven't been part of a deletion discussion before. Digestion 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. They aren't reliable sources independent of the fact as far as I can see. —« ANIMUM » 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You simply cannot expect a band of this genre to have their tour dates posted in a major newspaper, but that does not mean they don't go on tour. What's the point of having that requirement if it's impossible to prove? Digestion 13:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get "about 73,700" hits on Google for Behold... The Arctopus. This band isn't as obscure as some people here are making it out to be. If you don't believe me, look at this page I pulled out of nowhere of news about the band: they are recording a full-length album, recently finished a country-wide tour, and are associated with other notable, well-known bands (Kayo Dot being the major one I see here). I really wish people would stop AfD'ing articles that simply need improvement. I'd be happy to step in and work on this one if it's kept. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with the above-mentioned link, = ∫_t, is that the information provided is user-generated - meaning it's no more reliable than a blog or forum - from what I can tell. Also, Google hits are an ineffective argument for or against an article. What we need are verifiable sources, of which we have none that I have seen so far. Also, notability isn't inherited - they could have opened for Metallica, but unless that was covered significantly by a reliable source or two, it wouldn't matter. They look interesting, but there's no notability - and that's what counts the most. Sidatio 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay... like I said, that was the first one I found. How about news on Blabbermouth, a notably reliable source, which says pretty much the same thing? Or a small list of reviews I found online:

Understand that that is merely what I found in the last ten minutes... with a bit of looking I could certainly find more sources besides these. ... but anyway, can't we wait for the album to come out? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is just my opinion, but - in order:

The Blabbermouth article merely mentions B...tA playing at Maryland's Deathfest. Passing mentions aren't significant coverage.
The allmusic.com source looks valid as a biographical source, but there's not a whole lot there.
I seem to recall someone saying something to the effect that About.com isn't a valid source for some reason or another. (Can't imagine why you'd want to use this as a source, though - it's hardly flattering.) Same problem here with the Blabbermouth article - the band itself gets a passing mention, while the album is reviewed in depth. You have a good source for the album in question, though - provided I'm wrong in what I heard about About.com sources.
Same problem as above with the pitchforkmedia.com - it's mostly about the album.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sidatio 01:02, 6 August 2007 (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.