Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dope Stars Inc. (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dope Stars Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable group. Previously deleted via AFD but db-repost was declined because this is a different version. Still no indication of notability; fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article lists three albums with Trisol Music Group. Assuming that this is accurate, this passes criterion 5 of WP:BAND ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"). Google news shows 44 hits. Unfortunately, none seem to be in English so i can not judge them or use them to improve the article as I do not read either Italian or German. But I think it likely tha among these 44 there is significant coverage to establish notability. Better sourcing is needed, but that is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. DES (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to the page by the band's North American publishers that substantatiates the relaese of their albums, and a reference to an online review. DES (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trisol may be notable enough for inclusion in WIkipedia but is not a major label nor "one of the more important indie labels" as required by WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trisol Music Group says "In general they are considered a major European label for works within the realm of Dark Alternative music." For a European band i should think European defs of "major label" and "important indie label" would apply. TMG has, acording to its article, 9 sub-labels and at least 19 blue-linked, and therefore presumably notable artists under contract (as well as a number of red-linked artists). WP:BAND defines "an important indie lable" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". TMG seems to fit this. You also don't address the european non-english-language google news hits. A band with 44 news stories that at least mention it seems likely to be at least minimally notable. I wish that someone with the needed language skills would look thorugh those hits and indicate their contents for us. DES (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the statement you quote is unsourced. If Spin or Allmusic, for example, said Trisol is an important indie label, then I would take it as a fact. And "major label" is a very specific term (a label that is part of one of the multinational record companies, of which I believe there are only 4 left) and is inapplicable to Trisol. I didn't address the non-english coverage because I didn't see any that appeared to be from a reliable source. Similarly, I am unable to find any reliable sources about Trisol so I can't even establish how long that label has existed; it has brought that article's notability, for me, into question as well. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point about the quote, but doesn't the roster list as shown in the wikipedia article constitute evidence that this is "an important indie lable"? Is there no such thing as a major national label, a label that is major within a given country but is not international? Well if not, I think an argumment for "an important indie lable" still holds. DES (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. DES (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This band has released albums under a notable, almost major european indie label, has released two EPs under the same, and also a third EP under a smaller label. They have been around for 7 years. They have cooperated with major artists such as Emilie Autumn, The LoveCrave, The Birthday Massacre, and others on multiple occasions. They have played major festivals such as the Infest Festival and the M'era Luna Festival. Finally, they have appeared on the soundtracks of three of the Saw film series which have gained them mainstream popularity. Because they are Italian, english sources may be difficult to find. This does not make them unnotable. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. As for the actual quality of the article, it is above average for many band articles, especially for foreign ones. Ground  Z3R0   002  21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems to just scrape by the letter of WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Des reasoning. WP:BAND seems to have been met.  D r e a m Focus  20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep their music has appeared on the soundtracks of 3 major films (Saw II, III, and IV) TomCat4680 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow/Speedy Keep. Per the above keeps. Meets wp:band.  If a band meets wp:band, it is not required to meet other notability guidelines as well.  Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, has three major film soundtracks, has a number of articles.  As to wp:band containing subjective criteria, that is standard for wp guidelines -- even core one's such as what qualifies as an RS.  Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regardless of WP:BAND, all articles must meet general notability guidelines. Anyway, as far as I can tell the only part of WP:BAND applies is point 5, which states that a band "may be notable" if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". I personally find this an incredibly weak (and subjective) criterion to be used as a the basis for establishing notability. There is no evidence that the bands work has charted anywhere, and given that independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to the band are very thin on the ground, it leads me to conclude that Dope Stars Inc fail WP:GNG and any other criteria for inclusion. wjemather bigissue 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason why this is not stated is because this article is not complete. I am positive that a few singles have charted in Italy as well as their last album at the very least. In the US, I am not sure but they may have charted there as well. Next, they have earned at least two "Newcomer of the month awards" by different music magazines in Italy and Germany, which is almost completing another criterion. Finally, they have released multiple albums and EPs under several labels which at the very least are Major Indie and possibly Major labels themselves. They have released 3 major albums and 2 EPs in Italy under Trisol Music Group, the same three albums and 3 EPs in the US with Metropolis Records, and a few albums and EPs under Subsound (which is lower indie, so that doesn't meet it). But they meet nearly every one of the criterion independently and a band is considered notable if they meet at least one of those. In other words, this band is entirely notable, I just need to complete this article with more sources and chart info, which is no reason to delete this article. Ground  Z3R0   002  23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that like many others, you have misread the guidelines. The key word in WP:BAND is MAY. The subject must still meet general guidelines (WP:N). If they had charted, surely evidence would be readily available – where is it? The "Newcomer of the month" awards are hardly a noteworthy accomplishment. "Major albums"? Sounds like POV, where is the evidence for that? There is also no evidence to support the claim that their record label is major, and in this case Metropolis is nothing more than a distributor. wjemather bigissue 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Curious that, if they've had charting singles in Italy, there's no article for them on the Italian Wikipedia (and rate a mention in only four articles). TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have lots of notable articles yet to be written on the English wikipedia. I have no reason to think the Italian WP would be better.  As to the "MAY" argument, I personally do not find it convincing.  I "MAY" also cross the street when the light is green.  If we have to meet an additional notability guideline anyway -- which is not stated anywhere that I can see -- then it would be waste of space and bytes to write a meaningless wp:band guideline that doesn't provide guidance as to when a band is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All articles must meet WP:N. Additional guidelines are produced to give additional help in determining notability, and unfortunately WP:BAND is a particularly weak guide in some points; i.e 2 – Is, for example, charting at number 176 really notable? and 5 – There is no category for "more important indie label", so this relies on POV and as such, is largely meaningless despite the clarification which follows. I am concerned that you have given no reasoning for your keep above. Please refer to Afd if you require further guidance on AfD process. wjemather bigissue 10:15, 24 January 2010 (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.