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. Sources have been produced in the course of the discussion and the consensus since then is that they confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unremarkable band. No significant converage, seems to be passing mentions only. External links are all spam/adverts. — Timneu22 · talk 17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Timneu22. This appears to be nothing more than a struggling band trying to get some publicity. Apollo (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and can I ask how this didn't get A7ed? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Fare&action=historysubmit&diff=408812431&oldid=408800413. — Timneu22 · talk 10:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it doesn't meet the criteria for A7, which requires "no claim to notability." My internet is too slow to load the the external links so I can't comment on how good of a claim to notability it is. l'aquatique[talk] 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be helpful if editors commenting here could address the sources cited in the article, and why they do or do not meet our guidelines. The only ones with which I am familiar are The Sunday Times and the The New York Times, which have short pieces about the band, which would contribute towards notability but are probably not enough on their own. Are the others enough to get this over the bar? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good place to start when attempting to determine the notability of bands and musicians is generally Allmusic (a bona-fide reliable source), who have a biography of the band alongside a review of their debut album. There are also independent album reviews at The Sunday Times, Drowned in Sound, The Line of Best Fit, musicOMH and Popmatters. Meets WP:MUSIC#1, easily. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some citations to the article, and I'd be grateful if some of the previous contributors to this AfD would review their !votes in the light of this. Thanks. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The further sources found by Sparklism seal the notability deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Sparklism's cites are helpful, but can we please figure out how to work the citations from the "critical acclaim" section into the rest of the article so we can get rid of that section? It's very spammy sounding. l'aquatique[talk] 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Surely that's a metter for editing or talk page discussion rather than anything relevant to the decision on whether to keep or delete this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merely a comment... l'aquatique[talk] 17:53, 25 January 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.