Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThefucKINGFUCKS

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. A lot of work went into the article after it was nominated. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThefucKINGFUCKS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Was proposed for speedy. I felt that was overreaching but it does belong here and probably should be deleted. None of the sources work, and the bank seems to be arbitrary. No releases of its own, a supposed fleeting connection to some actual band, and a "future" album with no info and no notability. Article tries to excuse this with some nonsens about "oaths of silence." Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of position to Keep - I feel the article has been altered and fixed to the point that it now satisfies WP:MUSIC's notability requirements, and while the article itself still has issues of quality that need to be worked out, I feel notability has been established and it is comprised of (mostly) encyclopedic content. I urge the closing admin to consider the changes that have been made since editors stated their original positions on this, and I also ask that editors who spoke out in favor of a delete before now to revisit the article and see if they still feel the same way about it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, but the "oaths of silence" mumbo-jumbo was pretty funny. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• as stated the group is based on the Acéphale collective of georges bataille. it is not strictly a band, nor a dance group nor a performance art group but they are presenting work in each media. the oath of silence is only in terms of the research and not the performance work. very respected group with a serious cv. Insidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubtInsidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's nice but, can you provide any actual evidence (meaning a verifiable outside source regarding its notability?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Article has improved heavily, but too many statements need sources, and there is still presence of original research in the article. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. rootology (T) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the group has performed at the centre pompidou in paris, the very important electronic music festival 10DAYSOFF in gent, the audiovisual CIMATICS festival in brussels, depuryluxemburg gallery in zurich to mention only a few. all mentioned in the footnotes Insidoubt (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]

• Delete fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. Probably should have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion in relation to those policies is only for articles that do not assert notability. This article did attempt to claim the band is important, though the reasoning is flawed.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Insidoubt fails to make a good argument to even consider keeping.Tavix (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, but it deserves some praise for incorporating the United Nations Security Council into its list of references! Keep The article has been updated substantially and is no longer deserving of deletion. Good job! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see much evidence that it fulfils our notability guidelines. Little or no coverage in any non-primary sources. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Keep after improved sourcing and referencing. Due to this group's varied activities and insistence on using huge numbers of different names, it was very hard to evaluate their notability. At this point it seems to have enough sources to warrant a keep, but it really still needs more coherence about the group's actual activities - the current state of the article is still pretty vague about what they actually do. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More of an art collective than a band, and should be judged as such, but the presence of Kendell Geers and Patrick Codenys of Front 242 make them clearly notable in my view. Not sure what is meant by 'none of the sources work' - they look ok to me. Easily verifiable that they have performed at or contributed to several major art events around Europe. A search for "Red Sniper" reveals further coverage, e.g. [1]. I would urge those who have !voted Delete to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have corrected the links, footnotes and made the notability of the group more clear. the presence of highly respected artist Kendell Geers and Front 242 musician patrick codenys makes the group noteworthy. indeed not a typical music group or band and something more of an artist/music/dance/performance group but nontheless with standing international reputation - france, canada, italy, united kingdom and belgium on their list of performances. This is a group that is taken seriously by the international press, museums, galleries, rock fstivals and hence is notable. Insidoubt (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]

• The article has come a bit from its original quality. Notability seems somewhat established and I would consider withdrawing my nomination (do note that alone will not close the discussion, as other delete views have been registered), but I feel the article still needs more work. Much of the article's notability is seated in section 2, which needs sourcing still, and section 3 while not core to its notability really should be sourced or removed. If section 2 (members) is thoroughly sourced, I will change my position to that of keep but not before then, as without reliable sources for it I am not fully convinced of notability yet.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have tried to make more clear and coherent the details about the group's actual activities. The members are listed and explained in section 1 but i have addressed concerns about old sections 2 and 3, updating them and paying more attention to the nature of their performances and shows. Insidoubt (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]

• Comment. Playlist added - i hope that this clears up the questions of notability, reputation, sources and international standing Insidoubt (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubtInsidoubt (talk) 10:26, 25 July 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.