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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatnigs[edit]

Contested speedy. I deleted this as A7 for lack of an assertion of notability, but the article actually does assert notability by having being a former band of Michael Franti. I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article. Core desat 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The AMG bio seems to be a decent source, and they did have an album on Alternative Tentacles, which seems to be a very notable label (with a neat name, no less). However, I'm not finding much more about them, so I say only weak keep. Alternatively, I guess it could be merged to Michael Franti. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)w[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Could make a redirect to existing section in Franti's article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggest against a redirect to Franti on the grounds that another member of The Beatnigs, Rono Tse, also deserves his own article. One LP and an EP on Alternative tentacles (the EP was a remix by Adrian Sherwood), plus they recorded for the Peel Sessions, I suggest this last item demonstrates notability. The Alternative Tentacles website blurb for the reissue of the LP mentions "As heard on "Democracy Now" 2/9/06,"; I havn't listened to the show to see what this refers too, but note that searching for "Beatnigs" on the DN website turns up six different stories (all with Franti as focus, but I think if they mention the Beatnigs everytime they introduce him, that suggests that the Beatnigs are notable). Beatnigs concert review in the New York Times [1], more New York Times coverage (documenting Beatnigs participation in the New Music Seminar) [2]. I count nine links to this article from WP mainspace. Lastly, thanks to Coredesat for undeleting the article and sending here, as I had requested. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete! Who would even contest, this isnt a speedy? --Camaeron (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of people, by the looks of it. Being a former band of Michael Franti means that it can be considered to have passed one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC (as well as asserting the notability required to avoid being a speedy candidate) - an album on Alternative Tentacles is half-way to another of the criteria. A weak keep, or failing that a redirect to Franti's article, seem much more useful outcomes than a speedy deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google Books search shows several references to the Beatnigs. I'd say they meet criteria 1, 5, and 6 of WP:MUSIC. Klausness (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Democracy Now! is a minor podcast-level radio program. It wouldn't normally be accepted as a source for anything on Wikipedia. Being on Alternative Tentacles does certainly meet WP:MUSIC as that's a major and important independent label... but where's the proof that this article passes WP:RS and WP:N? There aren't even any sources given, except for a few reviews - certainly not a sufficient asserton of notability to pass WP:N. Probably the best that can be done is a redirect to Franti. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources provided in the form of two New York Times pieces, one academic journal and assorted books. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator. Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD, and possible removal of any other nominations for wasting AFD time with silliness like this. (Note I do not question sincerity, merely quality of judgement) - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that the article was not in anything like its present state when originally speedy deleted, it met the criteria for speedy deletion, and was undeleted by the nominator, and sent here to AfD, at my request. I can find no fault with the nominators actions, and suggest you rethink your comments, consider applying some AGF etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources. Recommend nominator cease from nominating similar articles for deletion. Catchpole (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it stands now, has good sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 10 March 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.