Talk:Ida (band)

NPOV
NPOV - Might wanna do a search on that. Justin

Delete this article?
Any reason this article (and the one on Mitchell herself) shouldn't be nominated for deletion? The band hasn't charted, has had no notable hits, is not influential, and seems to be listed mainly because one of it's members sung with Lisa Loeb while at brown? Can anyone make an argument why the article belongs on WP? If not, I'm moving to delete both articles as non-notable. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it meets our music notability guidelines. They are not as popular as Jennifer Lopez or Britney Spears, but then again they play a meditative style of rock music that doesn't appeal to a mass audience. Nevertheless, they have fans all over the world, have released 12 albums, and along with Low are one of the two most notable groups of this style. Badagnani (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't appear that this band meets a single one of WP's 12 criteria for notability (unless there are several published articles on the band that aren't cited here). Again, it's primary claim to fame (as the article is now written) appears to simply be that Lisa Loeb's old roommate/bandmate is a member (which would make it notable under notability criteria #6 only if Loeb herself had been in Ida at one point).  Having "fans all over the world," not uncommon in the days of iTunes, doesn't make the case.  And again, someone would have to find independent, significant sources supporting the claim that Ida is one of "the most notable groups of this style" (slowcore, presumably) to keep the entry.  I'm going to leave this alone for a couple of days, but then will probably move for deletion if rationale for the group's notability isn't provided.  And just for the record, I'm not out looking to hatchet articles, just to see that WP doesn't become clogged with every single band, notable and otherwise.  --Patchyreynolds (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take another look at the criteria, then list which of them they don't meet. I did already provide evidence that they do meet our criteria. Wishing or hoping that they did not meet them is simply not enough. Badagnani (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. And contending that the band does meet the criteria without providing evidence is also not enough.  (Rather my point.)  But since you asked...


 * 1) No evidence that it has been the focus of "multiple non-trivial published works."  Someone needs to list and cite multiple published  (not web site) discussions of the band's work that exceeds concert listings.  I imagine this will be the easiest criterion to meet, but as of yet it remains undone.
 * 2) No evidence the band has had a charted hit on any recognized national music chart.
 * 3) No certified gold record.
 * 4) No evidence of non-trivial coverage in a reputable source of a national or international tour.
 * 5) Is not signed to either a major label or a very important indie label.  (Someone could put the work into making an argument that Polyvinyl is up there with Sub Pop or Blue Note, though I'm personally doubtful the case could be made for that label.)
 * 6) No members of the group are former members of otherwise significant acts.  Liz & Lisa, while beloved by those of us who remember them from Brown, was not a significant musical act; it simply contained a singer-songwriter of future significance.  (Though I always thought Liz had the better voice.)
 * 7) No evidence that it is the single "most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city...."  No one's ever going to win an argument that Ida is the single most prominent NYC band.  And if someone wants to make the case that Ida is the most prominent representative of slowcore/sadcore, fine.  Just hasn't been argued and then supported with cites.
 * 8) Has not been nominated for a major music award.  Keep in mind we're talking about Grammy-level here.  (Though the criteria make it clear that Swedish equivalent of the Grammys is also acceptable, which seems to keep own dreams alive.)
 * 9) No evidence of having won or placed in a major music competition.
 * 10) No evidence of having performed a work for an otherwise notable media form/event. (E.g., Lazlo Bane performing the theme song to "Scrubs.")
 * 11) No evidence of having been placed into regular rotation by a national radio network.
 * 12) No evidence of having been the subject of a national TV or radio broadcast of over 1/2 hour in length.


 * Again, someone certainly might be able to make arguments for the article remaining under some of these points. I'm not out to propose an article's deletion just because it's currently under-supported.  But you began the article three years ago, and it's still lacking any of this material.  Thoughts?  --Patchyreynolds (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They have 10 albums out, on a variety of indie labels. Polyvinyl Records, their current label, has a couple of dozen notable artists, which are listed at List of Polyvinyl Record Co. artists. Badagnani (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of albums produced is irrelevant. A garage band can produce a dozen albums on an indie label.  The criterion is putting out multiple albums on an important indie label.  The criterion also defines an important label, in part, as one with many notable performers.  No one has established the latter case for Polyvinyl.  (In fact, glancing at their roster on WP, I'm having a tough time making the case for anyone outside of Architecture in Helsinki.  Over a third of the acts listed are defunct.)  Again, where is the supporting evidence for the claims you are making?  It certainly might be out there--and I hope that it it; the genius of online encyclopedias lies partly in their expansiveness--but three years into the page's history there appears to be no reason to keep the entry.--Patchyreynolds (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I just wanted to reiterate that I think criterion #1, not #5, is going to be the easiest to meet. #1 only involves harvesting published material.  #5 involves first establishing arguments related to to other topics, meaning much more work. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability is established with sources
Please provide inline citations of reliable sources: reviews, awards, hell, even press releases. Anything. --Lexein (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Press releases? What would be the purpose of that?  Anyhow, I provided a few cites. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Press releases are OK, though not preferred, for primary-sourced facts like album release or concert dates, if not notability, since the sources are not usually independent. Thx for the refs. --Lexein (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ida (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000818233801/http://www.idamusic.com/ to http://www.idamusic.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jean Cook
IMO, WP could use a separate article about Jean Cook (musician) of NYC, given how many bands she works with in a wide variety of musical genres. But, I don't know enough about her to do it myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, but it can be difficult to demonstrate notability for this type of artist, since they tend to get lots of small mentions, but little substantive coverage specifically about them. One way forward may be to build up her bio here, until it seems substantial enough to warrant a freestanding article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)