Jump to content

Talk:Midas (English band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only are they not notable per WP:BAND, this likely merits a speedy delete. Realkyhick 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article is pretty bare at the moment, that is because I am still in the process of compiling more information for it. I believe that this band is notable, because they are in 2 UK national charts, which for an unsigned band is a fantastic achievement. They have also been tipped to be great this year, and I believe that they deserve a mention of wikipedia. They have also been placed in rotation by some rock stations in the UK, and have been interviewed by the BBC. They have also done several gigs in the UK, and been reviewed on several websites such as digital spy etc. Therefore I think that they deserve to be kept on wikipedia, and on a personal note, I put a lot of work into recreating the page (As the last time I made it it was also deleted, although since then they have charted and got bigger), and am getting annoyed that my work keeps being deleted. Please don't delete it, I will try and beef up this article in the coming days and weeks. Thanks. Icecold 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Charting is definitely a criteria of notability, so you're probably pretty safe now. (After all, The Beatles wouldn't have met out notability standards early on when they were playing Liverpool clubs as The Quarrymen.) We do need you to provide links to the tips and other articles you mentioned, and prefereably to an online source for the chart as well. The more sources with online links, the batter. To help you out, I'm putting an {{underconstruction}} tag on the article, which essentially tells other editors to leave you alone whilst you "bulk up" the article. Take the time you need, then remove the tag when you're done. If you need help, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Realkyhick 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so...[edit]

This is a pretty bad wiki article - the point of Wikipedia ISN'T to advertise the band or give a colourful description. It is to inform. If it wasn't for the fact I was such a fan, I'd've also gone for a speedy delete. However, cos I'm nice - and because Dave (Drummer) said I could -I'll try and write/suggest something that makes it more wikified. Worley-d 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further edit to add - I suggest for the biography section that, rather than cut+paste from the band's MySpace, that you actually find out about the band and write it here as a proper enyclopediac article...

  • How did they form? When? Where? Why?
  • Is this the original setup? If not who are the former members? (I know for a fact there is something to be written here)
  • A track history, perhaps?
  • Which notable places have they played? - The Academy? Flapper? Barfly in both Birmingham and Camden, etc.
  • What are the band planning? Where are they going?

Remember it MUST be written in a style that is appropriate to Wikipedia. Chatting about them informally or liberally cut/pasting will not cut much ice with the Wikipedia admins. You are welcome, if you don't feel confident in writing in an appropriate style, to write what you think would be good for inclusion, and send it to me - I will re-write it in a form appropriate for the page. I wish you all the luck in the world. And good thinking - I was going to do this at some point :D Worley-d 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of negative section in critical analysis[edit]

By adding this second section to this quote, I was attempting to give an unbiased and fair reflection of the band. What was the purpose of it's removal? It was not "irrelevant". Worley-d 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The appendment to the quote was unnecessary. The full quote is, afterall, available at the referenced site. Era7er 11:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Analysis[edit]

As far as I'm concerned this section was only intended to promote the band and not provide impartial information about them, so I've removed it. Definitely not content for an encyclopedia. I suppose it would be vaguely acceptable to put relevant quotes in a correct context, but not just a big list of reviews the band have had. SJH 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Midas (English band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midas_(English_band)&oldid=1229181687"