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The result was nomination withdrawn, based on significant improvements to the original article. I would like to extend my thanks to those who took the time to bring the article up to a higher level. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band)[edit]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vanity article enhanced by one of the now-defunct band's founders, who also created an article about himself (that was subsequently redirected - the original text is here [1]. Fails WP:RS and WP:V -- the links are all MySpace and YouTube related. I have found no independent verification of the discography in any reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of 80s bands whose notability is easily confirmed. This is not one of them. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More references if you care to check.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] McWomble (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".[9] This site seems to verify the discography. (To Lugnuts and The-Pope, that suggests they predate MySpace by 21 years.)
  2. "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". At least two found.[10] Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop mentions two Top 20 singles.
  3. "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". I realise this isn't an independent source but it shows one of the band members standing in front of a V. Spy V. Spy gold record. Yes, a vinyl record which clearly predates MySpace. Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop says one of the singles went platinum.
  4. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" 13th Oct Australian Music featuring v Spy v Spy
  5. Also 111 items by the band are in Australia's National Film and Sound Archive.[11]
I think WP:LOCALFAME applies too. McWomble (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Links #2 and #3 don't appear to fall into WP:RS criteria. The archive site doesn't prove notability -- it just proves the archive collects everything that's out there. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It proves the that at least two albums on a major label exist, therefore meets the criteria. I thought that about the archive first, but their collection policy contradicts your assertion. They do not collect everything. McWomble (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having established notability via WP:Music's recommended sources (and many others) I suggest this nom now be withdrawn. Issues of vanity and COI can be corrected through editing. Satisfying music notability guidelines (also recommended by WP:MUSIC) suggests it may be possible to create a non-COI article on Craig Bloxom. McWomble (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to request that an AfD nomination be withdrawn. This debate will run the standard ~5 days, at which point an admin will close it as he/she sees fit. Tan | 39 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written in the AfD guidelines that suggesting the nominator withdraw the nomination is inappropriate? Nominations can be withdrawn at any time. McWomble (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Sometimes noms overlook something, like the variant spelling of this name, and they demonstrate their respect for other contributors time by withdrawing. This is a good thing, it often precedes speedy closes, and avoids wasting the time of an admin who has to carefully go over the facts and references. Thanks for the AFSA link McWomble. cygnis insignis 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written in the AfD guidelines that this suggestion is inappropriate. This is why I said it was inappropriate, not prohibited. Yes, nominations can be withdrawn at any time, but that is at the discretion of the nominator and your request is in poor faith here. If an uninvolved person suggested that this be done, perhaps it could be contemplated. As it is, you clearly want this article to be kept, as indicated in your many posts above. Asking the nominator to withdraw the nomination is simply another one of your "keep" arguments, and a poor one at that. Please don't do this in the future. Tan | 39 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion and demand is nonsense. cygnis insignis 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO McWomble's suggestion that this AfD be closed appears reasonable - particularly given both the volume and impeccable quality of the sources he's produced. I'm more concerned by the nominator's apparent desire to argue for deletion - which to my mind has the distinct whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about it. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assume it was an error in overlooking the variant name. cygnis insignis 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume good faith on that part. Notability has since been established and I am editing out the vanity and COI issues. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and shall give the demand the consideration it deserves. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (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.
More