Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65daysofstatic

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 Speedy Keep which was agreed upon by the nom. non-admin closure. J04n(talk page) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

65daysofstatic

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

doesn't seem notable to me Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this being deleted? The article has some notable sources including New Statesman. Sputnik Music Review has also reviewed them. Like many of todays band, it has a MySpace page but it has plenty more reliable sources. Very poor rationale from the nom. --^Writer_Listener 23:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not being deleted, it's being nominated for deletion. I don't think that a few album reviews seems to qualify them as notable per WP:MUSIC -- but it wasn't clear from the guidelines there. So I've started a discussion on the talk page for WP:MUSIC to hash this out. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple international tours. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No idea why this would actually be nominated... the article is fine and the band are very well known (at least in Australia, which is hardly where their largest fan base is) Evilive (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Very obviously notable band. "doesn't seem notable" is a pretty poor deletion rationale. Where did the nom look for sources? Google throws up plenty without really trying, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], ...--Michig (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "doesn't seem notable to me" - has the nom actually read the article? And they've not cited any policy for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:MUSIC - this is a musical gorup that has toured UK and North America, thus is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear that the consensus is to keep it. I didn't realize that the barrier for "reliability" for music sources was so much lower than for other types of articles. I saw the sources that the article had in them, but didn't think those sources were reliable publications. If someone wants to close this discussion as "Keep", please go ahead and do so. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (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.