Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Black


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mars Black

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

Contested prod. Does not demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC or biographical guidelines, lacking non-trivial third party coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:56z
 * Keep, possible Speedy Keep as WP:POINT violation. I contested this at DRV, and within minutes after restoration this AfD was initiated, obviously with no work put into looking for sources before doing so. The artist meets WP:MUSIC for having two releases on Team Love Records; see also (Allmusic),  (PopMatters),,  (Pitchfork Media), etc. Chubbles (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this a violation of WP:POINT, since DRV is not required to overturn a prod, and because you, acting in good faith, essentially contested the PROD after its deletion, and JBsupreme acting in good faith nominated it for AFD like is standard for any other contested prod. By the way I am Neutral on this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chubbles this article appeared on my watchlist as a contested prod. I searched Google News archives and found no evidence that this artist meets WP:MUSIC.  The links you provided do not help the cause either.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided four non-trivial, third party pieces of coverage from reliable publications. Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:N and WP:MUSIC are met by the sources added by Chubbles. sparkl!sm hey! 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say the Allmusic bio and Pitchfork review are sufficient as non-trivial independent published works, even if Pitchfork says he's mostly notable for being terrible. Also, Conor Oberst's label Team Love Records is an "important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", so he meets WP:BAND criterion #5 as well. I don't, however, see anything POINTy about this nomination, which appears to have been made according to process and in good faith, so chillax, peoples. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiability is clearly not a problem and if the reliable sources confirm they had two albums on a notable label, WP:MUSIC isn't in question either. I really don't see why it got nominated. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of the 2 Allmusic refs is an argument for keeping, but PopMatters and Pitchfork Media are nowhere near encyclopedic RSes. It still fails wp:music 5 (labels: Team Love Records), and 2 (charts) according to Billboard, which has pages on both albums, but nothing on anything of his ever charting anywhere: . -- Jeandré, 2009-04-17t12:43z
 * How does Team Love Records not meet WP:MUSIC#5? It's been around for about 6 years and has several notable bands and artists on its roster. And at any rate, an artist only has to meet one of the music criteria to qualify, not all. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: PopMatters is a reliable source: It's been used as a source of information by The New York Times, it's archived by one of the leading music journalists archive sites and it has had essays published in books - most notably in Da Capo's Best Music Writing 2006. I'm pretty sure I could come up with similar for Pitchfork, but I don't need to as PopMatters and Allmusic make that multiple reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 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.