Talk:Main Attrakionz

Notability is iffy
Based on the references that exist as I write this, I think notability is iffy. Whether this band meets WP:GNG (and therefore WP:MUSIC criteria 1) or not depends largely on whether the presence of the sources that do show significant coverage implies notability (the band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria in WP:MUSIC at this time).
 * This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. 00:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been listed at Notability/Noticeboard. 00:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources:


 * Kelly (2011) - review, significant coverage of group, 9/8/2011, timed around the release of 808s & Dark Grapes II
 * Butler - band is local to the publication, significant coverage of group, 12/21/2011
 * "Main" - band is local to the publication, significant coverage of group, 10/24/2012, timed around the release of Bossalinis And Fooliyones (Young One Records)
 * Goble - not significant coverage of group
 * Soderberg - blog, significant coverage of group, 10/25/2012, topic is Bossalinis & Fooliyones
 * Kelly (2012) - review, not significant coverage of group, 10/30/2012, topic is Bossalinis And Fooliyones
 * "Oakland's" - blog, band is local to the publication, not suitable as a reliable source Corrected 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC): newspaper blog, possibly suitable. Thanks to  for pointing this out.

My concerns are:
 * Kelly (2011), "Main", Soderberg, and Kelly (2012) are timed in a way that suggests they may be tied in with a promotional event.
 * Goble, Kelly (2012), and "Oakland's" do not offer significant coverage of the band, although they may give significant coverage to one or more of the band's works.
 * Soderberg and "Oakland's" are blogs, which generally are not considered notable.
 * Kelly (2011), Butler, "Main", Kelly (2012), and "Oakland's" are all "local" to the group. Many publications, even well-known ones, are more likely to cover local-interest material than non-local-interest material.

While there are no applicable "hard line" rules that say "if your local paper covers you, that doesn't count" or "blogs are automatically irrelevant to notability" the fact that a source is local or is a blog is a consideration in my mind and I expect many other editor's minds when evaluating notability.

Given the above I am restoring the "notability" template and inviting discussion. I will list this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music shortly.

The whole discussion can hopefully be rendered moot by using sources that show significant coverage in contexts where the independence, reliability, and non-promotional nature of the sources are without question. It can also be rendered moot if the band's success improves and it meets one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC other than criteria 1 (criteria 1 being basically a re-statement of WP:GNG). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The band meets WP:MUSICBIO because it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. 114.145.84.54 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1 is essentially the same as WP:GNG. I am claiming that the individual sources listed which discuss the band (not its works) in a non-trivial way may not be both reliable and independent of the subject in the way that Wikipedia requires.  My main concerns about the local and album-release-timed articles are that their coverage may be more "puff piece" than "reliable." I am looking for input from the community as a whole on how to handle this.  You are but one member of the community, as am I.
 * By the way, I considered taking this straight to AFD but given my own uncertainty of whether my view reflects the community's view, I figured a talk page discussion was more appropriate. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Stereogum (here), East Bay Express (here), Pitchfork Media (here) and Spin (here) are clearly both reliable and independet of the subject. You can't say the sources are puff piece just because they wrote the album-release-timed articles. Additionally, the SF Weekly source (here) is not a blog, but a newspaper blog. 114.145.84.54 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I remember has wrongly tagged  to many other notable articles such as Busdriver, Radioinactive, The Weather, Beaus$Eros, and Chance the Rapper in the past 114.145.84.54 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added coverage in Billboard and in The Irish Times now. Musical artists typically get an increase of coverage around the time of an album release, which is the same time as a promotional push, but I don't believe it means that the coverage is lacking independence. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of notability template
The notability template has been added (by me) and removed (by non-logged-in editor(s)) twice in rapid succession. As stated in Template:Notability, ""If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."" I have not decided if I am going to restore the tag immediately or wait for further discussion, but if it is restored either by me or another editor, it should not be removed until it is clear that the notability issues are resolved. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As quoted above, questions of notability can be resolved through discussion at Notability/Noticeboard or through Articles for deletion. This is not the place.
 * Although I'm 100% sure that Main Attrakionz can survive AfD, you may not think so. Please feel free to open the AfD discussion. 114.145.84.54 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)