Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cook Thugless


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cook Thugless

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, insufficient independent coverage in reliable sources. Provided sources largely do not appear reliable or are Q&A interviews. Online I was able to find reprints of some of these same references, but nothing that would make a stronger contribution to establishing notability. signed,Rosguill talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

*Strong Delete. Article has been created entirely from primary sources which is against the policy. These references are directly taken from the subject matter:, , and. Other references completely lack WP:GNG. Lordofthesky (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC) per: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poojajainhr, of which this is one.Djflem (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * — Lordofthesky (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most of the reliable sources I found were regional ones--not that I think that's as terrible as some editors do--but they've had almost a decade to garner national coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears the sources that directly reference subjective sources are being used for dates. Could use a clean up but there are a bunch of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanttoedit1942 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)    — Wanttoedit1942 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. signed,Rosguill talk 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have only linked one source there. Also, per that site's FAQ page, they're a pay to play review outlet, which makes them unreliable. I would also consider it a further strike against notability, because a band that meets notability guidelines wouldn't have any reason to solicit paid reviews. signed,Rosguill talk 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry I'm new on here. I work for a college radio station. I saw the discussion on the top of this page so joined to chime in. Per your note on elevator, it says they take paid sponsorships. that seems to be true of almost every outlet. That note on the FAW also says that those posts will be marked sponsored. including a few more sources. Was thinking about cleaning up this page if it is not deleted. I like the band and they have a weird story. Some links from a quick search: the Aquaraian, Voyage LA , event listing for concert with Wyclef Jean in LA weekly
 * The The Aquarian doesn't list any editorial information on their website and is therefore likely unreliable, the VoyageLA piece is a Q&A interview and thus not independent coverage, and the LAWeekly spot is an ad for a concert. Regarding the claim that most places take paid sponsorships, in my experience that isn't the case. Moreover, the issue isn't whether the publication ever does promotional coverage, but whether this article in particular is paid coverage. A paid album review is worthless for assessing notability. signed,Rosguill talk 18:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Aquarian might be reliable, found this here, its been a magazine/webzine for fifty years, with several names as per The Aquarian Weekly. It was discussed at WP:RSN in section 34 of this page Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch, striking that part of my prior comment. Not sure that's enough on its own to push this over to notability, however. signed,Rosguill talk 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i'm neutral at present, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per

Djflem (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Credible reliable and verifiable sources about the subject have been identified to demonstrate the notability of the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- all reliable sources that have been provided are local (regional at best) and fail to establish the national or international notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified. Regional and local sources are acceptable for WP:GNG except in companies and organisation articles where local sources are not counted for notability but regional sources are, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2020 (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.