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. John254 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Army (band)[edit]

Sources include the BBC website, reliable source. It wasn't originally listed when I added the deletion notice Rysin3 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this articl;e should remain. I will continue to improve it, there are more references to cite, and the ones I have given are good (in my opinion). The BBC website is a good example of this. It is my belief that this tag should be removed.--The Red Army Band 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article now has plenty of worthy citations, is well written and relates to other wikipedia pages (Cornish Music, Dalla).--The Red Army Band 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~Keep. With the release of only two singles so far, this band does not meet notability criteria for music, not to mention it probably fails Conflict of interest and Autobiography. The references are mostly self-published and what aren't are trivial. I would suggest the article be written later after the band is more fully established and more notable. Cricket02 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I change my vote to Keep as more reliable references have come to light. I did clean up and removed any links that were self-published/spam/adverts/blogs that are not considered reliable sources, but there are still plenty of reliable sources to consider this group to be influential in the local area and culture. Also, the author argues that although the article is within the scope of an Autobiography, it does not fail Neutral point of view, and I agree. Cricket02 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~*I would argue that it is written from a neutral viewpoint, and therefore not a conflict of interest. Also, the discography remains incomplete, as an album was released in 2005 (One Way Ticket). There are articles from the BBC, Radio Cornwall, and independent websites cited already, and the state of the artist is a large influence in the local area and culture, as can be seen from the wikipedia articles that already link to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the band appears to fail WP:MUSIC at this time. When notability requirements are met the article may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main point I believe them not to have failed WP: Music is "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". They are the most prominant and wellknown anti-folk band in Cornwall, and lead the movement with bands on the local scene. They also have toured in England "at least a medium sized country", and therefore I argue do not fail this criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn. Come back in a year. `'mikka 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the comment "come back in a year" frustrating. The artist in question have been around since 2004 (that's three years now) and the references I have cited list from a range of times. True, the impending release of their new album in the summwe will elevate their notability, but the article can just be edited then surely?--The Red Army Band 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Strongly referenced, including an interview by BBC. Article needs to be cleaned up, but should stay. LastChanceToBe 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article's got good references, is better written than many articles and pertains to a band who are somewhat more significant than certain others with Wikipedia articles. It'll likely be improved further soon, as will the band's real-world profile (inevitable after recent developments) and therefore should be kept. Benphillips 23:03, 13 February 2007 (GMT)

Keep - Good job on cleaning it up :-) Rysin3 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Philip Burley Just a heads up, guys, there is also a new stub article someone created about Philip Burley, one of the members of the band. Obviously the results of this afd should also probably be applied to that article. I'd recommend adding it to this afd nomination. (Note: Even if the band article is kept, as it currently appears might happen, the Philip Burley article might still be a good candidate for merger into the band's article.) Dugwiki 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article that has been added so far on Philip Burley appears to me to be biographical and fairly irrelevent to that of the bands page. I suggest it is not merged therefore, unless subsequent editing deams it similar to the bands page.--The Red Army Band 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple verifiable sources Catchpole 09:22, 16 February 2007 (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.