Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutal Juice


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Brutal Juice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND. Lack of independent, reliable third party sources. No charting history. Closest thing to coverage is the perfunctory one paragraph review to 1 album on AllMusic. Tagged for lack or sources for nearly 2 years with no improvements. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion1 and WP:GNG via, , , , , and no doubt further print coverage from largely pre-internet early years. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC) The band also satisfies criterion 5 of the guideline with albums released on Interscope Records and Alternative Tentacles. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Highbeam link you provided doesn't mention the band in the synopsis, so I struggle with calling it substantial coverage. Trouser Press? Not convinced. Dallas Observer, at the time, was a local free paper. And we all know that you think every band that got that single paragraph on All Music has "significant coverage". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The guideline calls for significant coverage in reliable sources. Why are you not convinced by Trouser Press? It's clearly significant coverage and clearly satisfies WP:RS. We have no guidelines stating how many paragraphs constitute significant coverage, but feel free to keep wikilawyering away. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1 paragraph isn't significant. Especially when it's at AllMusic by some dude whose sole job is to write a single paragraph on as many bands as possible. That's not wikilawyering, it's common sense. Next we'll be calling a single sentence "significant". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets GNG overall, per a source review. See below. North America1000 02:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Trouser Press. Trouser Press.
 * Dallas Observer Also note the longer, separate, full May 1992 article that is also pictured within this article.
 * Dallas Observer
 * All Music
 * The Dentonite (appears to be an overall reliable source)


 * The Washington Post. Has some content, but not significant coverage, in my view.
 * Houston Press. Has some content, but not significant coverage, in my view.


 * 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.