Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Owl Service (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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yintan 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl Service (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. One release on notable indie label Southern Records, which on its own isn't enough for notability, and everything else appears to be quite marginal. No coverage in major music press either. Yintan 21:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Looks like they're notable enough after all. Thanks for your remarks. Yintan 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known UK band. Have you looked for any sources? Since when have major labels been a prerequisite of notability? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND a notable band should have:

"two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

As far as I can tell The Owl Service fails this. And the other requirements too. Yintan 22:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. If it's a strict rule for the label to have "a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" I can immediately think of a few bands, only on their own independent label, which might fail. I'd better keep quiet about those until this case is decided. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay if a band fails this label requirement as long as they meet one or more of the others. Yintan 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick Google found a bio from The Great Folk Discography ([1]), and reviews from Goldmine ([2], [3]). --Michig (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this band is a bordeline case. Which is why I put it up for discussion. They are not obviously not-notable, but they don't appear to be obviously notable either. There are some mentions left and right, but do these satisfy WP:BAND? I'm not sure. Yintan 08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 17:10, 11 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.