Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsinore (band) (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 delete. Ultimately I find the delete opinions more convincing, particularly Chrissymad's analysis of the sources present in the article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Elsinore (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was inexplicably kept in 2010 but I see no evidence it actually meets inclusion criteria. The most significant source was from the AV club but aside from that everything appears to be hyper local and they don't appear to have charted. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NBAND. The AV Club link comes up as a 404, and there is no real information in the article past the lede. Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of those arguments justifies deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Brad  v  17:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is plenty of coverage to establish notability, e.g., , , , , , , , , , , , , . Two albums on Parasol Records should also be sufficient to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC) And the AV Club reference being a 404 is irrelevant to notability, and it can be retrieved from an archived version - . --Michig (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, my reason for nominating had nothing to do with the 404 as it was easily available via archived versions. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the rest, this is exactly why I nommed it - the huffpo piece is an interview in a blog, as are most of the rest or hyper local blogs. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources listed above are clearly neither blogs nor 'hyper local'. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, Michig. This, aside from two sentences is an interview, this is a blog, blog, two sentences in a blog, announcement, hyper local show listing/interview, hyper local. And to be honest, as far as the Demig reviews go, I'm not convinced that the same person reviewing a band 5 times (Mark Demig) constitutes the multiple sources covering it required. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only two of Mark Deming's reviews among the 14 sources listed, not five as you state. There are also two reviews from PopMatters and one from Exclaim!. As for the blogs, these are newspaper staff blogs, and are reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs by nature are not useful for establishing notability since they are not subject to the same editorial oversight. Also you're not addressing the fact that they are hyper local. Riverfront Times is local and not significant. As far as the reviews, All of the reviews and biogs on AllMusic are written by the same person and the two popmatters reviews are 3 sentences each. Pastemagazine is a blog. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic bio and reviews are significant coverage in a reliable source. The PopMatters reviews may be fairly brief but still valid. The Exclaim! review is significant coverage in a reliable source. Paste magazine is not a blog. If newspapers and magazines publish 'blog' posts by their staff on the newspaper/magazine website, we should assume that they are happy that they are of sufficient quality, i.e. they do have sufficient editorial oversight. All newspapers are local - if the coverage was all local to the band there might be an argument for not treating it as evidence of notability, but it isn't. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that Paste is not a magazine in and of itself but that particular piece is a blog as you can clearly see if you click the link. None of this amounts to the required in depth coverage. And a piece that is almost entirely aside from 2 sentences an interview is not independent coverage. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Michig's refs evidence notability. Article needs to be built up, not deleted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the amount of information about this band, it is unfortunate that this article has remained in the state that it's in since the first Deletion discussion 8 years ago., you seem to know a lot about this band, I invite you to incorporate the sources you found into the article so that this doesn't happen again. Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * half of those sources are problematic as they're blogs or typical local paper "this show is happening" announcements. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NO BLACKMAIL! No "improve this article, or we'll kill it." I invite you to exclude yourself from all deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , let's remember to WP:AGF here and watch how we interact with other users. Claims of "blackmail" are ridiculous. I was noting that this is a three-sentence article that has twice survived Deletion discussions. In that time none of the 14 sources that was able to find have been added to this article to bolster its notability and create an article that would in any way meet WP:NMUSIC. My suggestion was that if so many sources are able to be found on this band (despite the fact that  has suggested they would largely not meet WP:RS for notability), then the information in those sources should be added to the prose of the article. Unless of course the articles brought up have nothing of substance in them, and are merely passing mentions of the band and therefore would not meet the Wiki standards for notability. Both you and Michig are strong supporters of keeping this article, go ahead and improve it. Bkissin (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , how about _you_ remember to WP:AGF? You vote to delete and challenge others to improve. This is bad behavior. Deletion discussions are not to be based on "improve, or else...". Until you understand this, I really think that WP would be better served if you avoided deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , instead of nitpicking Michig's refs, howza about you use those cycles to engage in a bit moreWP:BEFORE before nominating? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you stop with the personal attacks and ridiculous accusations? I did do before and I still agree with my nomination as well as my analysis of the sources. If you think my nomination was in bad faith, take it to ANI, otherwise chill out and stop attacking people for following guidelines and policy. Further, you're the only one asserting "or else" nonsense. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do not think that your nomination was made in bad faith. I don't think that I have been "attacking people for following guidelines and policy". You clearly disagree with me, but given the statements made, I think that "nonsense" is a little harsh. Oh, well. I will try to "chill out". Thank you for your feedback. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the quantity of sources listed above, it's the quality of the sources that matters. When making an argument for keep, you don't need to WP:REFBOMB the AFD. Just pick out two sources that are reliable, significant, and independent. Chrissy has done a good job of analyzing the sources listed above and showing that they're not up to par. If someone can show that there are at least two high quality sources instead of making everyone sift through a refbomb, that would help. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the refs identified above are sufficient for this to pass WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not seeing any high quality sources. All the sources appear to lack significant coverage, or are not from a reliable source (i.e. a blog etc). We need at least two sources that are significant, independent, AND reliable. Despite the ref-bomb above, this does not appear to be the case based on my perusal of them. I can't find anything better either, so have no choice but to !vote delete. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not going to apologise for actually bothering to conduct a search for coverage and presenting what I found here, and I would also remind other editors that WP:GNG is not the only route to establishing notability. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not asking you to apologise for doing a search, though I would have preferred a bit of sorting by quality. Whether Parasol Records qualifies as "one of the more important indie labels" is a bit debatable, but coverage in sources trumps any of the Subject Specific Notability Guidelines. While WP:NMUSIC states that topics that meet those criteria "may be notable", it does not create inherent notability, especially when we search and can't find adequate sourcing to meet the GNG. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I dug up some minor sources, and actually listened to Yes Yes Yes. You can stream Nothing for Design on Amazon if you're curious. They're OK. They seem to be a band that was always just on the edge of success but didn't quite make it. If their URL hadn't expired, this would be a full keep. They have more recent musical and video output, but not much written about it that I can find.[] [] The Nate & Margaret movie I red-linked to looks just notable enough if someone wants to add the article. [] [] [] 78% on Rotten Tomatoes FWIW [] TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:36, 4 October 2018 (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.