Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxtails (band)

Foxtails (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND. Going through the 6 sources, the first is their personal bandcamp, the second is an article I don't have access to but it seems connected to the band, the third is "foxtails interview", fourth is "new album out now", fifth is a review of one of their albums (no significant coverage about the band), and sixth is an interview about a new EP release. My external searches give me little more than what is here already. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their bandcamp was only used as a source for the pronouns of the band members, since some older interviews do not reflect the current pronouns used by the band members. The second source is an article from the Hartford Courant, a newspaper from Connecticut. This is not connected to the band in any way, nor are any of the other four sources. I suppose there is also a bit of a discrepancy about what we consider to be coverage of the band. I would think that coverage of an artist's works would be considered coverage of the artist since the purpose of most music publications is to talk about the music itself. Unless you are only including sources which talk about the band members' personal lives and disregarding sources about their music, which seems somewhat counter-intuitive for me. To my knowledge, there is not a specific minimum number of sources required to establish notability, but I thought five (not connected to the band) would be sufficient. If this is not the case, how many sources and/or what types of sources would have to be added for the article to not be deleted? Thanks. Ptarmica (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage of the artist's work is not coverage of the artist. Coverage of the artist's work is good if you wanted to have an article on the works' themselves, i.e. something like Home (Foxtails album), but it doesn't establish anything for the band if the band (as an entity) is never the subject of these sources. Utopes _{(talk /cont)} 07:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, coverage of their works is obviously about the band in the same way that coverage of an author's books, or an artist's works contribute to their notability. This is necessary for notability as interviews are excluded from notability considerations if they have no independent prose but can still be used in the article if from reliable sources so it's not as if there is no usable coverage of the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

• Leaning towards delete or draftify - this may be WP:TOOSOON if they're an underground/only locally known band just starting to be written about in large music publications like BrooklynVegan. I see the members are LGBTQ and one of the members speaks Spanish, is there any coverage from LGBTQ media outlets or Spanish-language ones? Sarsenet (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]