Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graf Orlock (band)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Graf Orlock (band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy. Band with unclear notability. Sources could be interpreted as providing trivial or unreliable verification. Produced several albums, but label is not major and it is unclear if the label could be considered an important indie label. Is Decibel magazine's top 40 a national music chart? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Decibel magazine's top 40 is just the magazine's top chart, not national. Level Plane Records is an independent label which from looking at number five WP:BAND seems to fit it's criteria to be important; formed and still active since 1997 and has notable artists from the talk page (Envy, Racebannon, Melt-Banana) and has featured releases from others like Hewhocorrupts and Aiden Baker's Nadja project. But maybe the issue is that's it's not notable enough to help pass number five. The Phantomnaut (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:MUSIC for multiple album reviews and or mentions; Punknews.org, , Decibel (magazine); , , PopMatters; and others , , . Level Plane isn't a notable record label, at least by Wikipedia's standards, and I've tagged it as such. While it may have some notable, i.e. bluelink , bands, notability is not inherited.    Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to pass WP:MUSIC. Decibel is a reliable source but the others are forums and blogs which dont pass WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. A blog is a type of formatting - a way in which someone chooses to distribute content. Please judge publications on their editors and editorial judgement rather than their website layout. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This nonsense about blog sources automatically being unreliable is poison, and has no basis in policy or guidelines. riffic (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment self published sources such as blogs are not generally considered reliable. See WP:SPS. The only exception to this is self published material from a recognized expert who also is published in reliable 3rd publications.  An example would be a blog maintained by a newspaper columnist or one of the news networks blogs.  These dont appear to fall into that category.--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, the Popmatters review also appears to qualify as an RS, unless someone can persuade me otherwise. Nerfari (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (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.