Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smudge (band)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smudge (band)

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

Severe lack of independent coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC, a Google News search said much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find a slightly okay reference and added it, but still seems to be lacking. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entry in McFarlane's encyclopaedia. Multiple album releases through Half a Cow. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: How do either of those denote notability? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep: McFarlane's encyclopedia isn't a reliable source (nevermind for establishing notability). I'm not seeing the coverage needed. The only chance I'd see is the claim of being signed to Half A Cow, as they might be a notable independent label (thus meeting #5 for ensembles on WP:NMUSIC, but the Half a Cow article is almost entirely unsourced, and most of the musicians/ensembles listed on their page don't appear to necessarily jive with the claim (and have substantial sourcing issues themselves). I'd need to see a lot more reliable sources all around here. In fact, I'd say a number of these other associated articles probably need some serious scrutiny to make sure they conform with WP:BLP. Waggie (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop is definitely considered to be an independent reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entry in McFarlane, in AllMusic, two (or more) albums issued by a notable independent label, the group toured Australia, supported an international artist and hence passes WP:NBAND#1, 4, 5.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smudge, before Smudge was made into a dab page.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you read the band's Allmusic listing you'll see that the band have had a number of international releases on US and AUS labels, they have toured Europe and Australia. If you do an internet search you'll also find there are a significant number of independent references to the band on Australian and UK websites. The band's founder, Tom Morgan is notable musician. All of which clearly indicate that the band satisfies the criteria for notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an entry in McFarlane is definitely good enough as a single reliable independent source, and there is plenty of other material on this band to push them way past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Hi there Dan arndt, Lankiveil, and Shaidar cuebiyar. I am changing my vote, as I would say the article sourcing overall has been improved enough to establish notability - thank you for improving it. However, I want to point out that it is not because of the McFarlane entry or the AllMusic entry. These are not reliable sources. McFarlane is not journalistic, nor does it have the traditional fact-checking and editorial control that is expected of a reliable source (it's effectively a blog of Ian McFarlane, a nice one, to be sure though). Why do I think the AllMusic entry isn't a reliable source? Nick Corr doesn't appear to have written anything else, whatsoever for AllMusic, I find that quite odd if he's a journalist for them. I'm an IT person and I think any number of IT-related forums and blogs are a fantastic resources, but are definitely not reliable sources. Waggie (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waggie, don't judge a book by it's later online copy. Ian McFarlane is a highly respected journalist, researcher and historian with many years of writing in this field. His Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop is a book, not a blog [1]. It was published by Allen & Unwin a leading publisher with a history of over 100 years. This book was properly researched and checked, reading the book you will find a section on the process of researching the content including some details about the sources he used, such as major newspapers, music magazines and street press.

Interesting point about Corr (although not entirely correct [2]) but a source publishing an article written by a free lancer does not make it an unreliable source. duffbeerforme (talk)

Have to concur with Duffbeerforme - McFarlane is a highly respected journalist and rock historian. The Encyclopaedia is not a 'blog' site and is considered to be a reliable source and seriously question Waggie's statement that it doesn't have "the traditional fact-checking and editorial control that is expected of a reliable source". In relation to Nick Corr,, he has written other content for Allmusic, as identified by Duff (above). Allmusic is a reliable source as they have a history of fact checking and editorial control. Corr is not primarily a journalist however that shouldn't be an issue give Allmusic's level of editorial control. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your efforts improving the Smudge article. Waggie (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as per Waggie. You guys did a great job improving it, I'm proud of y'all and the rare occurance of AfD working properly. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:15, 5 June 2017 (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.