Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cauda Pavonis

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 A7 speedily with lots of salt, 'n aye that's but a record shop's house label y'all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cauda Pavonis

Thrice-speedied non-notable musical group - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 and salt Absolutely no notability per WP:BAND. ~~So tagged.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it states in the Criteria that 'A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:'

This article demonstrates that not one but three of these are met:-

1 It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

- The passing reference in the book 21st Century Goth cannot be verified and is likely trivial. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That as may be, however that still leaves two where one is requiredDarqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2]

10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)

No valid references to prove that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall find references to as many of the compilations as possible - Give me time Darqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three more referenced added to compilations - There can be no doubt that the criteria are met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darqmann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

The reason for the previous spedies is that the Author did not complete the article before deletion.Darqmann (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The Tony Head reference is not valid per WP:CITE. How else can we verify this? Also, I would challenge the source "LocaleTV - beta" as a reliable source. How is a beta website reliable? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite quite a stringent requirement, I have seen far shakier evidence on wikipedia, but ok I'll find another referenceDarqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

besides, I'd suggest that the TV Listings engine is in Beta but the data held within is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.74 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for S&G, let the AFD work through so we'll have a {{G4}} to back us up. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepDarqmann (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 6 days since this debate went cold, could the consideration to delete be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.156.240.17 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt Three times A7 speedied and still failing WP:MUSIC should be enough. treelo _talk 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, there was only one A7 actioned - the two prior deletes were due to perceived copyright enfringement - despite the materials used being freely distributable163.156.240.17 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Please demonstrate how this fails, the article qualifies on three counts. 163.156.240.17 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - have added another instance of "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." with reference163.156.240.17 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - and another163.156.240.17 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about the reliability of the ref to the show 'Magick Eve' refuted with a further reference to its existence163.156.240.17 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's another 5 days, No-one has argued successfully that there is a problem with this article. It should stay.Darqmann (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know nothing about goth music but WP:MUSIC#C5 says that a group is notable if it "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Now I can find [1],[2] of their CD's for sale on amazon.co.uk, both of which were released on Resurrection Records, so it would appear that they meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC to be notable.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just seems to scrape past WP:MUSIC#C5 as per above. RMHED (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2008 (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.