Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plague (New Zealand band) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Articles has been tagged as having no sources since December 2010. Article makes no claim for notability, and my own searches turned up nothing.~~ FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. A number of sources have been added to the article and I believe it meets the notability guidelines. I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to Nurg (and to other editors) for the hard work improving/providing sources for the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It did have one source. It has been expanded and has 5 sources now. Nurg (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article. Is there anything notable about this band? From what I can tell, the references may be fairly trivial (and not all of them are necessarily the most reliable), and the page still doesn't claim any special significance for the band. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this group has notability based on it's membership and their subsequent careers. I'm going to tend with Keep because nobody would delete The Quarrymen, and this has linking to a mid-level project new zealand article Blam Blam Blam. Not that I have any particular knowledge of 80's NZ pop music, I just trust that they know best.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific to Music, this group has members of an ensemble that has had at least 1 (more) national music charts. Several members moved on to groups that charted well enough.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever." From WP: Inherited. emphasis added.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging taggers Duffbeerforme and Stuartyeates. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing notability relating to the band. This suggests that the main protagonist meets the GNG, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found enough to suggest that this band was important at least as a precursor to several other notable bands/individual careers. The other option would be to refactor into an article about Richard von Sturmer, who certainly appears to be notable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Michig, which demonstrate that Richard von Sturmer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
If necessary, the article can be refactored to be about von Sturmer with The Plague, the band he led, as a component of his biography. However, Michig's sources demonstrate the band is likely independently notable. Since the band existed in the 1970s, newspaper articles about them likely are not accessible on the Internet.
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now has two books as sources, plus some lesser sources. I'm thinking this meets criteria #1 at WP:BAND ("subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"). It also seems to meet criteria #6, in that most of the band members are presumably independently notable, as there are articles about them. I'm favouring keep. If a decision was made to delete the article, I would like the content kept available for incorporation into other associated articles. Nurg (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2015 (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.