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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skafish[edit]

Skafish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

can't find coverage or notability Alan - talk 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the forerunners of the 1990s ska revival. Major label band on A&M via Miles Copeland's IRS. As they were part of the 1976-82 scene, they are undoubtedly seriously covered in various guides to the new wave. See, for example, Robert Christgau's books done for Rolling Stone Press, I think it was. This article needs a good deal of editing for style, of course. But the band was influential and undoubtedly the subject of independent coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

point of note, stylistically Skafish has little to do with Ska. riffic (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A shining example of an AfD nominator who fails to understand Deletion policy, and why it should be sanctionable to fail to make a legitimate attempt to at least confirm sourcing (in both Google news archive AND other periodical databases as sources may be offline or not indexed by Google) may exist first. riffic (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sources appear to exist to establish this band's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Make a Google search to see over 18,000 results. They weren't the most popular band from the class of '76 but they're certainly notable enough. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--obviously notable, as for instance a Google Book search suggests immediately. I call for SNOW. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:N easily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON and WP:GNG. Even a cursory WP:BEFORE finds the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. And being "defunct" does not make a notable topic suddenly non-notable, else we'd have to delete articles on such "defunct" music related topics like The Frug , The Monkey, or The Twist. Historical notability is quite fine with Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW - this was a seminal band in the history of popular music, and the article can be well-sourced very easily. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 3 May 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.