Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakota (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   keep.  Sandstein  21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakota (band)

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

Possible non notable band per WP:MUSIC. A lot of history about the band in the article but not much to prove their notability, other than implying they are "notable by association". Article was tagged December 2007 for needing more sources or references. The final wording in the "history" section says: ''Alternative Press magazine tipped the band to be a breakout star for 2006. The band mounted a full US tour throughout the beginning of the year but upon arriving back home, Ramirez announced he was moving to Los Angeles. Lakota broke up shortly afterwards.'' Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The sources are mostly reviews, but they should cut it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly weak keep. These sources certainly exist:, , , , , , . I'm inclined to think that these are enough.--Michig (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am only asking but do we allow reviews of albums/demos/EPs/ etc to be considered "Significant coverage" on the artist? I thought an album review/press release was only considered for proving "notability" for an article on that release, not on the artist their self. Also the Alternative Press link is for a staff submitted Recommendation, much like a video store having a list of staff recommendations for films or a library having a staff recommended "new release" for books. I am not discounting it but these are sort of like blogs that many magazine and newspaper have now. EDIT: (Just an FYI on Alt Press - here is a link to the Submit News section) Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. the altpress Submit News link, the BBC has something similar - I don't think it makes them an unreliable source.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:WP:MUSIC lists 12 items under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Item one states that the artist may be notable if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Next is the section that seems to cause problems: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:" and it lists items such as "reprints of press releases", "advertising for the musician/ensemble" and "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates". In any case where a newspaper or magazine has a "community events", "upcoming concerts", "user submitted news" or the like it is information that came from a press release. If a publicist, artist, family member, friend, label rep, studio rep posted "Y is going to release a new album on mmddyyyy and contains the following tracks: ab, nf, wk, pf, lq" on a fan site or personal blog it would not be considered a notable source. If that exact same information was put into a press release and placed on the label or artists official website it could be used to verify that an album in coming out and what the tracks are but it would still not be thought of as one of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself". Now if that same press release were uploaded to a website such as AP than some Editors would feel it is part of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself". That is what I am saying - the source of the uploaded information may not be unreliable however if it is "user submitted" there is no way to know for sure and because these small blurbs only contain a reprint of a press release or a list of tour dates they can not be considered part of the criteria for determining notability. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are correct that press releases or reprints thereof would not count as reliable sources, but I see nothing to suggest that any of the links above are reprints of press releases. Some/all of those links are from music sites that have a staff who write the articles.--Michig (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ack - ok, go back to what I first asked - "do we allow reviews of albums/demos/EPs/ etc to be considered "Significant coverage" on the artist?" Then I mentioned the AP link was not an article but a staff pick, much like a video store or library does "Staff picks". Then you mentioned the BBC has a user submitted section as well and I replied to that. So to be clear - For an article on an artist the guidlines suggest there needs to be "Significant coverage" on the band, not only reviews of albums, listings of concert dates and so on. As for *this* band you provided seven links. Six of those links are to album reviews - four that review "Hope For the Haunted" and two that review the "Acquaintances" EP. The last link is to "AP Recommends", which is where various staffers that work for AP recommend an artist or an album - in this case it is recommending "Hope for the Haunted" but if you look very close you see this was "Posted by Rob Ortenzi" (director of new media - ie: web - for AP) even though the actual "article" says "Scott Heisel" (Music Editor at AP). I am not discounting this coverage fully, only saying that the band has had their album reviewed. That is coverage of an album and the songs on it, and none of the reviews are very long. They do not seem to fit the "multiple non-trivial published works" description. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. My judgmnet would be that these sources are sufficient. If you're looking for a clear-cut clarification of the guidelines I think you'll need to raise it on the WP:MUSIC talk page, as the guideline is not that specific.--Michig (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 * Comment on relist: Only one person has commented on the sources listed in the weak keep !vote, making it difficult to tell if there is a consensus for deletion here. Let's give it five more days for more examination of the quality of the sources before deciding which way the balance is tipping.


 * Weak keep They fall under a couple major labels, the sources are acceptable, just barely notable enough for inclusion in my opinion. Master&amp;Expert  ( Talk ) 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:MUSIC, just, but a keep none the less.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Source and keep. US national tour qualifies them for WP:BAND. The sources are about (see above), but the citation needs to be added to the article and not just posted here. B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2008 (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.