Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro Quarterstaff


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Electro Quarterstaff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to provide any references for notability as per WP:BAND that supports inclusion in Wikipedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:BAND criteria #5, having released 2 albums on an indie label with numerous notable bands. I do, however, agree that we need more (and better) sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Woodroar. I would rather say delete due to lack of notability, but you can't get around crterion #5, which is pretty explicit about its requirements.  Despite this, I'm not convinced the Willowtip site is very reliable, and would also be happy to see more reliable sources.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources - the best I came up with was this piece in Exclaim!.  Gong   show  22:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is quite hard; I'm not convinced they're notable myself, but the criterion mentioned above may allow them to slide past other requirements. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also something in the June 2011 issue of Decibel but, alas, it's not online. Woodroar (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A source doesn't have to be online to be valid for our purposes; we can source stuff to paper-only content such as books, newspapers or magazines. If anyone has a way to locate that article, it's potentially a valid source whether it's online or not. (Granted, for all we know it might just be a blurb that isn't substantial enough to constitute meaningful coverage — but if somebody is able to locate it and it is a relatively substantial article, then we can still use it.) Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, by "not online" I simply meant that it's difficult to verify its content, not to negate it being a RS. :) It turns out that Electro Quarterstaff were in the December 2006 issue of Decibel as well, that is not online, either but from the part quoted on the Willowip site it appears to be a review of their first album on that label. Since the second article in Decibel was released around the same time as EQ's second Willowtip album, I can only assume that it's an album review as well. I'll try to track down some readily available sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wasn't sure which implication you meant, but it was worth clarifying anyway because some people do actually still genuinely believe that sources have to be published online to count toward RS. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, even if a band does meet one or more WP:BAND criteria we still don't have to keep the article if it can't be reliably sourced at all — so the fact that they've released two albums doesn't count unless you can source that they've garnered some meaningful degree of coverage for releasing two albums, and thus deletion is still entirely possible and acceptable here if good sourcing can't be found. That said, Exclaim! always counts as a reliable source for Canadian music (although obviously not enough in isolation), and Decibel doesn't have to be online — if somebody's able to locate and read it, it can still count too. So at this point I'm indecisive — the article clearly isn't good enough in its current state, but the potential does exist for some sourcing improvement here. So I guess I'm dancing on the edge of a Heymann: delete if the article's sourcing hasn't been improved by closing time, and keep if it has been. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per inability of editors to find reliable sources covering subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Contrary to Woodroar's contention item 5 is not met as it reads: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." Two albums, but not on a major label or an important indi label. When half of the artists on the label do not have articles, meaning they're not notable, it fails there. No other claim to notability has been made and the nomination is completely correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And Bearcat makes an interesting point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per coverage in Exclaim and in the Winnipeg Free Press .  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (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.