Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paisley Plaid

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisley Plaid

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

Subjects do not meet the notability criteria listed at WP:BAND or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The Paisley Plaid are notable for their body of work (8 albums in nine years), method of working (eclectic and innovative), philosophy (inclusive and tolerant). Outsider artists like this should be included as wiki material, otherwise wikipedia is not complete. Establishment artists are not the only artists. Wikipedia provides information beyond the usual avenues. The Paisley Plaid deserves inclusion for the sake of the spread of free information, and for helping to complete the base of knowledge available for research purposes... Also, please remember this article is a work in progress by a new user trying hard. -visualpxVisualpx (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I have a friend who has recorded ten albums in five years, yet he does not meet WP:BAND. Perhaps you could go read that guideline now and tell us which of those 12 they meet. It needs to be supported with reliable sources, not that I have any reason to doubt your word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have saved the text of the article in case it gets deleted and I want to resubmit a more pertinent one later. I'm assuming I would be allowed to try again in the not immediate future if the worst happens now.

I'm sorry your friend didn't get included. He deserves it, sounds like, although I have read the rigorous criteria for inclusion. I suppose people have discussed editing the criteria to allow outsider groups. Otherwise that would be my modest proposal. What do you think? Is there a chance to amend the guidelines for the sake of wiki completion?

Or... What if there were an article linking together outsider bands alphabetically, or something?

Best, visualpx (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I see now that I have two (2) citations or references so far that merit consideration for passing the bar here. They are to Future Music, a newsstand source; and to BLOG TO COMM, another independent and reliable reviewer. Hopefully that will be good enough to save the article. And more hopefully, much greater documentation will come in the future, as I would try to find it :) But for now, other than typos or formatting errors which I don't know about yet, I rest my case. I do hope it's good enough. It's been fun! visualpxVisualpx (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sorry, but this band is not "notable" in the wikipedia sense. By all means the creator should keep the content and put it somewhere on the web, but wikipedia requires WP:GNG to be met for bands to get their own articles, and there is no way this group meets WP:GNG. but if it did, I'd be busy creating articles on Our National Space and Cyrus Sullivan ("21 and legal").--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, the subject does not meet WP:BAND. Am happy to acknowledge it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:PROMO new, unique or up-and-coming bands - it's actually not the place to WP:PROMO any band, regardless of popularity. Wikipedia records what multiple reliable sources have determined is notable. There is, I'll acknowledge, an element of "establishmentism" to that and I'm all for "fighting the power" but Wikipedia is not the place for that either. That's what blogs are for. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (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.