Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska! (2nd nomination)


 * 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. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alaska!
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are four articles related to this band, and between the four of them not one single source. Does not appear to be a notable band. Previously nominated four years ago, at which time several supporters came forward to claim they met the notability criteria. (including the nonsensical argument that the presence of the equally obscure Russell Pollard granted notability to this project, his article is hardly evidence of his own notability, let alone this band's.) Oddly, none of them proffered even one source to back that claim, yet the discussion was closed as a keeper. I'd like to think we should have at least one actual reliable source if we are going to have a whole family of articles on this obscure band.

Also nominating the following articles on albums and singles by this band:
 * Emotions (Alaska! album)
 * Rescue Through Tomahawk
 * Kiss You (alaska! single) (former article on a single, currently a redirect to the album's article)


 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Maybe you could have searched for sources WP:BEFORE nominating? Coverage includes these:, , , , , , .--Michig (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that sure looks like a long list of sources. Let's go through them and see what you've found.
 * Entries at Allmusic. From "All genres and styles of music are covered here, ranging from the most commercially popular to the most obscure. " So, they intend to cover everything music related. Not evidence of notability.
 * An album review from Prefix magazine's website. Been looking at their website for a few minutes now and from what I can tell they let all kinds of people write reviews there, not just the actual magazine staff. The one linked here appears to have been written by a guy who reviewed three albums for this website in 2005. Doesn't strike me as evidence of notability to get a review from this website.
 * An album review on Pitchfork's website. A featured article or a listing on one of their album or song of the year lists might be evidence of notability, but since they review pretty much every single indie rock release a mere review is not really evidence of notability.
 * And an interview on Spinner. An interview with Pollard based on his participation in the band Everest, not this band, so not sure why it was included here at all but it lends no support whatever to the claim of notability.
 * I stand by by nomination, this is not evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is absolute rubbish. Neither Allmusic nor Pitchfork cover every release or even every band, and even if they did that would not discount them as examples of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The band has also been covered in CMJ New Music Monthly and The Fader (see Google Books) - both print magazines that wouldn't have space to cover every release even in the unlikely event that they wanted to.--Michig (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh...and Billboard.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and the Dallas Observer.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Boston Globe, Boston Globe again. Pretty clear notability.--Michig (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, Michig's arguments are persuasive. JORGENEV  00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep Multiple pitchfork reviews, allmusic writeups, CMJ, billboard, boston globe and fader coverage. The nominator's comments on the pitchfork & allmusic sources fly in the face of the pages linked in the nominating statement, to the extent that in a functional project s/he would be not be working in this area. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Don't know who Russell Pollard is? HERE'S A READING LIST, a total of 474 hits for his name from the website of Rolling Stone magazine. Alaska! is a Russell Pollard band, ergo it is notable. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * D'OH! That's Robert Pollard, not Russell Pollard. I am a moron. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Regarding the band, the sources listed above establish sufficient coverage such that criterion 1 of WP:BAND is satisfied. The two albums meet WP:NALBUMS as non-trivial coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable sources.  Gongshow  Talk 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Michig's sources demonstrate notability, easily. --sparkl!sm hey! 09:49, 28 November 2011 (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.