- 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. I'm going to simplify matters by withdrawing it. I will stay in my own areas for a while. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Räfven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not my field, but it seems no notable records of presence in significant films/ DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Keepleaning to change to Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #3 "nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". What overall relevance does the single argument"no notable records of presence in significant films"
have in an article about a band? Would nom please clarify? Remotely WP:BAND #10, yes, but that is quite irrelevant when we have sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and I could go on. All these are bylined intitle: Gnews hits. Plenty more is out there on this band. And we are already well above GNG. Sam Sailor 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- Speedy keep hopefully under SKCRIT#1 as withdrawn. I begin to think that the combination of sources that would easily have been found and the unusual deletion rationale could indicate that it is the wrong article that got tagged here. Was it meant for an actor stub? That would have been more befitting. Sam Sailor 07:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I meant a combination of a/ no significant recordings, and b/ that the presence in the two films in the final paragraph did not lead to notability because those films were not significant.
DGG (
talk ) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure how
no notable records of presence in significant films
can be understood asno significant recordings
. But the SNG subsection WP:BAND is a descriptive list of criteria that indicate a band may be notable for inclusion if one or more criterion is met. It is not a list of criteria that indicate exclusion if one or more criterion is not met. So to turn it upside-down and argue "because their films/recordings are not significant, the band is not notable" is a flaw in deductive reasoning. Let's discuss notability looking at existing sources. Why were none added as part of WP:ATD prior to nomination? Why are they ignored when presented here? Sam Sailor 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure how
- I meant a combination of a/ no significant recordings, and b/ that the presence in the two films in the final paragraph did not lead to notability because those films were not significant.
DGG (
talk ) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. I'm going to simplify matters by withdrawing it. I will stay in my own areas for a while. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Räfven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not my field, but it seems no notable records of presence in significant films/ DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Keepleaning to change to Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #3 "nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". What overall relevance does the single argument"no notable records of presence in significant films"
have in an article about a band? Would nom please clarify? Remotely WP:BAND #10, yes, but that is quite irrelevant when we have sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and I could go on. All these are bylined intitle: Gnews hits. Plenty more is out there on this band. And we are already well above GNG. Sam Sailor 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- Speedy keep hopefully under SKCRIT#1 as withdrawn. I begin to think that the combination of sources that would easily have been found and the unusual deletion rationale could indicate that it is the wrong article that got tagged here. Was it meant for an actor stub? That would have been more befitting. Sam Sailor 07:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I meant a combination of a/ no significant recordings, and b/ that the presence in the two films in the final paragraph did not lead to notability because those films were not significant.
DGG (
talk ) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure how
no notable records of presence in significant films
can be understood asno significant recordings
. But the SNG subsection WP:BAND is a descriptive list of criteria that indicate a band may be notable for inclusion if one or more criterion is met. It is not a list of criteria that indicate exclusion if one or more criterion is not met. So to turn it upside-down and argue "because their films/recordings are not significant, the band is not notable" is a flaw in deductive reasoning. Let's discuss notability looking at existing sources. Why were none added as part of WP:ATD prior to nomination? Why are they ignored when presented here? Sam Sailor 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure how
- I meant a combination of a/ no significant recordings, and b/ that the presence in the two films in the final paragraph did not lead to notability because those films were not significant.
DGG (
talk ) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.