Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason (American 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. Consensus seems to be that the sources in the article and the sources found since then are enough to establish notability. None of the delete arguments substantially challenge this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Mason (American band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable band with one self-published album. Unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - MrX 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any substantiated claims to notability. --Ozgod (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with stipulation - Article makes no claim of importance and A7 tag was removed by author. It should have been deleted but since we're here, the band does appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC as they've released multiple albums on non-independent labels.  Livin' on the Edge was released on Elektra Records and You Were Supposed to Be Beautiful was released on Victory Records.  Granted, that's a weak way to establish notability.  There two references in the article would constitute independent and significant coverage of the band (one reference) and of an album (the other reference).  I've never been clear as to how reliable AllMusic is but WP:MUSIC lists the website as a good source to use, by name.  At any rate, notability is very weak, from what I could find, but the band's name may simply be making it difficult to find sources.  The stipulation is that this information be added to the article.  This is an odd situation that was created by an AfD being started when A7 was more appropriate.  I'd do it myself but I feel that my time is better spent elsewhere.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  02:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Allmusic bio and review, plus also covered in Vernon Joynson's Fuzz Acid and Flowers, album was a four-star pick in Billboard . For a band that released one album in the early 1970s (I don't the others listed at Allmusic are by this Mason) finding coverage online is going to be tricky. --Michig (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whatever Joynson wrote about the band doesn't seem to be on the web. I am not seeing any RS that says anything beyond the fact that this band issued an album with various songs on it. The band is not mentioned in the 1,100 page Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, nor is it's lead dude, Jim Galyon. The album was reissued on CD by an independent label and is listed on CD Universe.Kauffner (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source that covers the band and another that covers an album: . I don't see how those sources don't constitute significant and independent coverage from a reliable source, especially since Notability_(music) specifically says that AllMusic is a good source to use (I'm not sure that I agree with that but I didn't make the guideline).  I've covered the rest of my feelings in my !vote but I don't understand how you either didn't find these references or don't feel that either can be used to establish notability. Also, that a source isn't found online doesn't mean it's not verifiable or that it can't be used to establish notability.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  14:41, 29 March 2013 (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.