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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Clearly there is enough evidence of notability. Thanks to the editors who have shown this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catapilla[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. No independent sources at all. (Article was deleted after PROD, and recreated. Article was nominated for speedy deletion (CSD A7), which was declined with no reason given. I cannot imagine why the speedy deletion was declined: I can see no claim of significance in the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I declined it. It makes an assertion of notability that, if backed up by references, satisfies WP:MUS criterion #5 (easily satisfying CSD A7). Vertigo records is a major label, and the article says that Catapilla released two albums on this label. I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't consider this a claim of significance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note The band clearly existed and certainly released two albums on Vertigo. A cursory google search reveals this much. They had a relatively short career in the early 1970s, so it's hardly surprising that they're not as internet visible as current bands, but they clearly have a following large enough to merit a recent re-release of their albums: [1]. They're profiled in Cesare Rizzi's book on Prog Rock (in Italian) Rizzi, Cesare, Progressive, giunti, pp. 81–82. Also some information here: [2]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely independent source given (bandtoband.com). Satisfies the notability. Why are people like you even here? What a site. Full of self-appointed know-alls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxp3456 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a real band (I personally own one of their albums and it is rather good actually) and two releases on a major label like Vertigo are enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Keresaspa (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wish there were more material accessible on line, but, as Catfish Jim notes, the 2 albums pass WP:BAND #5. For what it's worth, Allmusic not only covers the band but gives the second album, Changes, a rave review,[3] and asserts that the band "created some of England's most innovative music of the early '70s" and that "the group's influence continues to be felt."[4].--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2011 (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.