Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotus (rock 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 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lotus (rock band)

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

Sources are primarily college pages, interviews, the like. Contains a couple vague assertations of notability, but I don't think they quite make it through any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources as evidenced in the article, plus several album releases on significant enough labels. No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and there's plenty more coverage not currently cited in the article - see the article's talk page. This article already has a sorry history of editors trying to speedy delete it and prod it while its creator was actively building it up. It's already good enough to stay in my view and can be improved further.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further coverage not currently cited in the article:, , , , .--Michig (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and these (from Google News):, .--Michig (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That if these sources were added there would be no reason to delete?--Michig (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that it should be kept (see Soundvisions comments below), but it sure wouldn't hurt to add what you've found. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides the 15 sources in the actual article, there's also another 16 put up by editors on the talk page and the one's added on this page. Credible, solid sources from industry leading magazines, newspapers, some are college and blogs, but that only a portion. This band was featured on the cover of Pollstar the music industry bible. There is an extreme amount of solid sources for this band in the article. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see more information about that in my post above. Pollstar is not the "the music industry bible", it is a industry trade magazine that deals with touring. The feature is an extension of tour publicity that is aimed squarely at buyers who are considering who to bring into their venues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Based on the interview in Relix it could be a keeper but WP:MUSIC does say "multiple non-trivial published works". Comments: Most of the other items listed fall under the "except" (i.e - do not use for notability) section in WP:MUSIC, Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number one, "except for the following" section. I am also still not 100% on the "short album review" = "Notability of a band" concept. Also here are some links to compare the given citations with - "LOTUS ANNOUNCES THEIR “COPY PASTE REPEAT” TOUR" Press release in PDF format, "Lotus Bio" and "Lotus Current Press releases" all direct from their publicity firm. Doing a search for various phrases contained in them will yield returns of articles, but that does not mean they should be cited to establish "Notability". Concert listings combined with sections of a bio still fall under WP:MUSIC, Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number one. The link given above to "metrosprit" is the press release discussing a local concert date but does mention that "Lotus is currently being featured on the cover of Pollstar – The Concert Hotwire and highlighted as an immerging act to catch on tour". So I went to Pollstar and did a search you got a listing of their tour dates and a Press release with the tour dates, along with several mini links that link back to those sections. I had to dig to find it but it does exist - Lotus but it does not seem to say anywhere that they are an "emerging band to catch on tour". What this is, and it is very important to keep in mind that this is a trade magazine that caters to promoters and live venues, is a combination of interviews with the bands booking agent, their manager, the bands bass player and press releases. Yes it is somewhat "Notable" to have this feature in Pollstar however it contains hype provided people who are not "independent from the musician/ensemble itself". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the review from Allmusic, and the newspaper articles? It only needs 2 good sources for notability - the others are fine as additional sources.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Overall this question is a two way street. In this case were are talking about a band, not an album. Several reviews of an album may make the album notable, but it does not mean the band is. The reverse, as it relates to this discussion, in in cases of an article on an album existing and there are very few, or no, "non trival" articles on the album and Editors post links to articles on the band to prove notability via the "The album is notable because the band in notable" argument. Currently the guidlines, that are specific to bands, say that the following can not be used : "press releases", "publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves", "advertising for the musician/ensemble", "trivial coverage" (such as "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates" and "contact and booking details in directories"). The bulk of these articles are combinations of tour press releases about an upcoming show or about an album release (or a combination of both as it is a tour in support of an album). If these were articles, and not listings of shows, some would fall under the "school or university newspaper (or similar)" category, which was already addressed in the AfD nomination. A review of an album makes the "subject" of the article the album, not the artist. One of the example citation is to an article titled "Club Notes:Switchfoot rocks for a cause" and I had to look at it a few times because I wondered why it was even cited as it does not mention Lotus. But upon closer inspection, under the part about Switchfoot, there is a mention Lotus. Then I noticed this is not really an article on any one artist - it is actually a section of the paper called "Club Notes" that contains information about upcoming shows in the area. And most of the information reguarding Lotus is not on their live show, but on their "Hammerstrike" album. I am not discounting album reviews or mentions of a bands albums fully but this AfD is an article on a band, not an album. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The allmusic review says a lot about the band, as do several of the other sources. Some of the coverage found does not include in-depth coverage of the band itself, but please concentrate on the better sources, such as the Relix article, the allmusic review, and the Pittsburg Tribune-Review article. To be clear, WP:MUSIC does not state that reviews are not considered valid as significant coverage of the band. If you're suggesting that we could have an article on an album, but not on the band who created that album, that just seems ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not "suggesting" anything, just saying what the guidelines are. WP:GNG sets the definitions for all guidlines. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.. WP:MUSIC backs this up by saying, in section one of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" : It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. In both case it indicates that the source must address the "subject" of the article, and do so "in detail" (or "non-trivial"). An editor must combine these with the "except" portion. You keep asking about the All Media Guide review. First is the fact that it is a "review". Of what? The first line explains it: "Opening with a peppy two-step acid riff, this debut album..." and it goes on to describe songs, some of which are "towards the house music zone" and "ride a steady thump". The musicians in the band are mentioned, in the context of the review, in comments such as the "minimal guitar pluck of Mike Rempel", "arpeggiated keyboards of Luke Miller" and that "Steve Clemens' drum playing scoots right along with Chuck Morris' electronic percussion...". And there is a track listing. This is an album review, and as such does "address the subject directly in detail". Another way to look at this is that if all band member names were omitted it would still have the exact same impact - the the review does "address the subject directly in detail". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Live performances and recordings are what the band does - they are the whole point of the band existing. Reviews of their recordings are coverage of the band. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Michig, there's plenty of coverage here in notable sources. Fumoses (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   —Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How could an album by a band be notable but not the band? You could learn about thier albums but not the band? If a band makes a notbable album aren't they therefore notable themselves? Again the band was on the cover of Pollstar, a VERY well respected magazine, as well as many major newspapers, webistes, etc. That's about as notable as it gets. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Up and coming" maybe but not notable yet. The coverage is mostly hype: trivial, and non-substantial. "[A]bout as notable as it gets" would be something like "Won Grammies and was on the cover of the Rolling Stone, not "on the cover of an advertising rag like Pollstar". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have expanded the article with additional sources from Relix, PopMatters, etc. I think it clearly passes based on coverage now - those who previously doubted notability might like to take another look.--Michig (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If winning Grammys and being on the cover of Rolling Stone is all that makes band's notbale beyond the solid, respectable sources listed in Lotus you'd have to take down about 50% of the bands with articles on Wikipedia. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep From the WP:MUSIC Page

''This page in a nutshell:
 * ''A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts.
 * Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.''

Band meets both these requirements and the page lists the sources for each. This goes beyond the numerous solid, respectable sources in print, etc. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – The following sources, found in a library database, provide the significant independent coverage needed for WP:N notability requirements:
 * DiFonzo, Carla. "Lotus unfolds an eclectic sound at Chameleon", Intelligencer Journal, 2004-01-12.
 * Hughes, Korey. "Warm up the sound: Lotus strikes a new position in electronic music", Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2004-03-04, p. D10.
 * Clark, Chris. "Power to spare: Lotus mixes electronic and traditional sounds", The Buffalo News, 2004-09-10, p. G17.
 * I can add information from these articles (or someone else could too, if they want to look them up). Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added them now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:The problem is the articles you have cited have no context, other than providing an inter-wiki link to the newspapers. For example one of your citations was placed next to this statement: "Bassist Jesse Miller and guitarist Luke Miller (born 1979) are twin brothers." There is not a direct quote given from the citation to show context but my question is "How does this fact show the band in notable?" Another citation you provided was to verify this: "Formed at Goshen College in Indiana in 1999..." However this information is also found in other sources, some of which are already cited. The idea is not to keep adding citations that repeat "facts" such as what year the band formed, that the band formed at a college, certain members are related, an album was released or the band does live shows. I provided links to the bands publicist as a way to reference that type of information and to compare it with many of the citations provided. Perhaps the articles Paul Erik provided are the same form of article as they are currently being used to verify facts in the article that do not establish notability of the subject. For a moment visually remove all citations that are from school/college news, (reprinted) press releases about the band, reviews of a CD, information about an upcoming live show that uses a press release, (reprinted) press releases about a tour, (reprinted) press release about a music release, blogs, trivial mentions of the band in larger articles, any article that is not fully independent of the subject, and any other citations that do not provide "Significant coverage" on the band. What is left? That is a starting point. That is what is needed and should be used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that you and I have a different understanding of the notability guideline. My understanding was that the guidelines came about to help establish a neutral way to assess notability. The neutral way to establish that a particular subject is notable is to demonstrate that independent sources have "taken note": "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I've offered three sources that are articles in mainstream newspapers, articles that are entirely about this band. They are not press releases; they are not trivial mentions (meaning something akin to a directory listing). That's enough for WP:N, or, to put it another way, this is enough to pass WP:MUSIC criterion #1. The band does not need some sort of special achievement in addition in order to satisfy the guidelines. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I couldn't agree more - there is ample evidence that this band meets the notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What part of WP:GNG's definitions are not clear? I am asking because if there is somehting that is not clear it should be proposed as a change over there.
 * Comment: As I mentioned the citations you gave were not used to establish notability, they were used to verify facts that do not aid in establishing notability. Perhaps I was not clear and I apologize. Perhaps if I reworded as an example and ask questions in relationship to your citations, as currently given in the article:
 * "Does the fact the band contains brothers, who are also twins born in 1979, establish the subject of the article as notable?"
 * "Does the fact the band formed in 1999 establish the subject of the article as notable?"
 * "Does the fact the band formed at Goshen College in Indiana establish the subject of the article as notable?"
 * If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes" than someone needs to provide citations that show the subject of the article is notable because of these facts and the article cited must go along with the definitions found at WP:GNG and also follow Wikipedia policy concerning sources. Simply saying "Bassist Jesse Miller and guitarist Luke Miller (born 1979) are twin brothers" and citing a source that verifies they are twins who were born in 1979 and are members of Lotus is not enough to establish notability. Also as not everyone reading will have seen the articles you cited so it would be helpful, if an online version can not be found, to provide direct quotes of relevant information that go along with the article statement you are providing a citation for. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A band is notable if "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." It doesn't matter what those works contain. The works about the band only have to exist, they don't have to demonstrate any additional notability beyond the fact that the band has received such coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually that is not an entirely true reading. Content is very important in establishing notability, guidlines imply it and if you read footnotes in various policy and guideline articles you will see examples. From WP:GNG: Note number 2 (Very much like Note number 2 at WP:MUSIC) is pretty good at explaining "Self-promotion". Note number 4 says - Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works. and Note number 6 says - Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. If 50 (or 100 for that matter) articles, all about the band's history, existed in "reliable sources" it would not automatically make the band notable if the information was all essentially the same. Many of the cited sources in this article are all based on the same source(s) and outlines of most are 1.history of the band (year formed, where formed, who formed) 2.current album mention (date of release, track listing, small review) 3.where there is a live show (Local date, other dates). Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an entirely true reading as it's taken directly from the relevant guideline, and by definition, "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" would not fall into any of the categories that you mentioned. Many of the sources in the article go well beyond such trivial mentions, and only 2 are required for mutiple significant coverage, e.g. substantial reviews, features, etc. And I don't think you can discount some of the sources just because part of the article contains information possibly sourced from a press release. If an article is simply reprinting a press release, then yes, it's not a WP:RS. If an article is largely original work but, for example, contains a quote from a band member sourced from a press release as a small part of the article, that's very different.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the multiple sources added, I'm convinced that they now meet WP:MUSIC. Since others have called for deletion, I won't withdraw yet. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

96.248.139.106 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's time to remove the delation tag. This article meets all the requirements above and well beyond.
 * The tag can't be removed until this deletion is closed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:48, 6 November 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.