Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clowns of Decadence
=[[Clowns of Decadence]]=
:{{la|Clowns of Decadence}} – (
:({{Find sources|Clowns of Decadence}})
A topic about an Australian band that appears to fail WP:BAND. Google Books provides quite limited results; basically one source with a passing mention (see [http://books.google.com/books?id=KXFbAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Clowns+of+Decadence%22&dq=%22Clowns+of+Decadence%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=awSnULqVFIikiQLgjYCQDA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA]). Google News archives reveals coverage on NME.com and The Sydney Morning Herald, but the coverage is minimal. For example, here's the search results at NME.com: [http://www.nme.com/search?cx=partner-pub-6852032732218605%3Av7fy6ffnd8n&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Clowns+of+decadence&search_type=site&x=0&y=0], which provides this one very short article: [http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/KUZu5zFdG3Q] along with another that has the band's name in the search results but the article itself has no information ([http://www.nme.com/clowns-of-decadence-videos]) When clicking on this latter link, it just redirects to another page on the NME site. Here's the passing mention in the The Sydney Morning Herald article: [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199354486.html]. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It's worse than that - the MRR mention is of the '80s Melbourne band of the same name, not this one. Delete - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)- Keep – According to WP:BAND#5: "two or more albums ... on one of the more important indie labels". We have Siren Records/Entertainment or Homegrown Artists releasing Kamikaze Karnival (1993),{{Citation | author1=Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) | title=Kamikaze karnival | publication-date=1993 | publisher=Homegrown Artists | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/15876133 | accessdate=21 November 2012 }} Dirty Tricks Incorporated (1994),{{Citation | author1=Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) | title=Dirty tricks incorporated | publication-date=1994 | publisher=Siren Records | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16071764 | accessdate=21 November 2012 }} Too Ugly for Airplay (1995),{{Citation | author1=Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) | title=Too ugly for airplay | publication-date=1995 | publisher=Siren Entertainments | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21923420 | accessdate=21 November 2012 }} and Clowns of a Lesser God (1996).{{Citation | author1=Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) | title=Clowns of a lesser god | publication-date=1996 | publisher=Siren Entertainment | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/22715600 | accessdate=21 November 2012 }} The label is an indie one but did exist for a number of years in Adelaide in the 1990s, it released a range of Homegrown compilations e.g. Homegrown 94 (1994).{{Citation | author1=Mark of Cain (Musical group) | author2=Sin Dog Jellyroll (Musical group) | author3=Capital F (Musical group) | author4=Blue Experience (Musical group) | author5=Bliss (Popular Musical group) | author6=Kinetic Playground (Musical group) | author7=Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) | author8=Egg (Musical group) | author9=Oblong (Musical group) | author10=Jazz Odyssey (Musical group) | author11=Raisin Toast (Musical group) | author12=Crush (Musical group) | author13=Bearded Clams (Musical group) | author14=Numbskulls (Musical group) | author15=Where's The Pope? (Musical group) | author16=Stain (Musical group) | title=Homegrown 94 | publication-date=1994 | publisher=Siren Records | url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/22648957 | accessdate=21 November 2012 }} - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaidar cuebiyar (talk • contribs)
- Yeah, that convinces me. Still needs third-party refs, but that establishes the prima facie case to keep. Now to make the article not terrible ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
: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.