Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great Big Pile of Leaves


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A Great Big Pile of Leaves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band on YouTube and non-notable label. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This looks like substantial coverage of the topic.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The Bozeman Daily Chronicle article provided above is about cleaning up leaves, not the band in question. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment "I say, I say, that's a joke, son!" -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to a Keep based on the sources provided by Jethrobot. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Joking aside, there are some reviews of the band with Modern Vinyl and and UnderTheGun, and interviews with MuzikDiscovery, and with AMP Magazine. I think these sources do a great job of providing significant coverage, but I'd like to hear opinions on whether these constitute reliable sources.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work finding, a really solid source. is a blog post without any depth.  and  are really generic interviews, with  the questions portraying no sign of the interviewers having listened to the music or knowing anything beyond the standard press release info; none of the questions are challenging or obviously journalistic. In short these two aren't independent reliable sources, I think they're routine coverage of the band. Taken together, they're not really good enough for me; but another source as solid as the first and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was able to dig up This review in Italian that seems to go beyond routine coverage. Here is a rough Google translation: .  I also found this review from positiveexposure, a digital publication.  They're not exactly a shining example of WP:RS, as the page is a tumblr account, but it seems to have some editorial oversight per this submission page FAQ.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just Leaning Keep: Ok, being serious now, I think notability is fairly in question, but its not an open-and-shut case.  That's why I declined the prod earlier this year.  (I also downloaded some of their tunes back then, btw, nice indie rock/pop in the brooklyn vein.)  Here's another source (college newspaper) .  For those in doubt, I'd ask, what about the existing sources is insufficient?  Reviews in Pitchfork? What would put you over the line?  They aren't yet Real Estate (band), I guess.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm pretty sure the college newspaper isn't considered an appropriate publication per WP:NBAND #1, but the other sources available seem to support that this band has nontrivial coverage, therefore meeting WP:NBAND #1. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found prove notability.  D r e a m Focus  15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * weak keep as per new sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 16 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.