Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natchez Trace (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   delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Natchez Trace (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a bit of a mess -- the topic(s) of the article is/are not clearly defined and the notability of the topic(s) is/are not apparent. The article, as currently written, is mostly about the fact that several different bands (actual number undetermined) with the name "Natchez Trace" have existed, and several currently exist. Most of the information about these bands has been derived from the musicians' own websites. There's barely enough information in the sources to reliably distinguish between the different bands, and I have not seen solid evidence that any of them are notable according to either WP:GNG or WP:BAND.

In its current form (content may be different by the time you read this), the article has a modest amount of information about two bands by this name. (Aside: Both are described in the article as "country and western" bands, although neither band uses the word "western" to describe itself.)

One of the bands is a regional band from Decatur, Alabama, whose main claim to fame is being the opening act for concerts by several big-name musicians. That band self-reports that it has won some minor awards, none of which are described in Wikipedia articles. This probably is a decent country band, but I don't see substantial third-party coverage or the kinds of accomplishments listed at WP:BAND.

The second band (first one discussed in the article) is one of several groups that a performer named Brent Woodall has been associated with. I get the impression from his website that it's a group of Nashville studio musicians and songwriters who periodically get together in mix-and-match bands that tour and record their own music. There's a little more third-party coverage of this group of musicians than there is of the first band, and they say they had some recordings on the indie charts, but the information is very sketchy. It seems likely to me that Brent Woodall will turn out to be notable, but his individual bands may not be.

My limited web research leads me to believe that the "Natchez Trace" band with the strongest claim to notability probably is a folk or country (??) group that existed in the early 1970s, probably in the UK. That band recorded an album called Best of the Immortal Natchez Trace in 1975, Sweet Folk LP SFA 048.. That album included a song called "Strutt's Strut", suggesting that this is the band that British musician Nick Strutt belonged to. (His membership in a band called Natchez Trace is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the current article.) I found several eBay listings for a UK-recorded album called Last Time Together that was recorded by a 3-man "Natchez Trace" group in 1972. Another UK album by Natchez Trace being sold on eBay is "From Natchez to Nashville." One of the eBay listings mentioned Nick Strutt in the listing (the only musician named).

There seems to have been a U.S. "acoustic rock" group by this name later in the 1970s. It is claimed to be the progenitor of a legacy-style rock band by this name that is based in Michigan and is not currently discussed in the Wikipedia article. This online news article tells about a Michigan musician who did sound for "Natchez Trace" in 1975 and traveled to California in 1976 with the band and its manager, Ed Kettle, who got the band a publishing deal with Martin Cohen, who published the Eagles. I haven't found any other indication of possible notability for the current Michigan band. To add to the confusion, the Michigan band's website includes a mention of yet another "Natchez Trace" band that had earlier existed locally in Michigan.

It is possible that some or none of these bands are notable, but it is pointless to have an article in article space until the bands can be clearly distinguished from one another and the notability of individual bands can be determined from information derived from reliable sources. I think this article should stay in user space while information is compiled. I have encouraged the article's creator to userfy it (and later I userfied it for him), but he is insistent that it belongs in article space unless deleted through an AfD process, so here we are. Orlady (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification (sort of): The article seems to reference yet another band, out of Dallas. This was the one that was a Terry Award nominee (not winner) for Ft Worth Band of the Year. I don't think it's related to the others mentioned, but am not sure. The album Turn Up the Jukebox might be by one of these bands or some other. Station1 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks to Station1 for supplying that "clarification" -- or increase in confusion, as the case may be. To recap, there are at least five different bands by this name (four U.S. bands in Decatur, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; and Michigan; plus one U.K. band); the bands play several different styles of music; there is very little information available about any of these bands; when shards of information are found, it often is difficult to tell which of the bands a particular factoid applies to; there is insufficient information to assess notability, but little reason to think that most of these bands are notable; the current article attempts to cover at least two or possibly all of these bands, although they are unrelated except by name; and the article appears to misattribute some details to the wrong band(s). All in all, it doesn't belong in encyclopedia main space. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of the confusion derives from the deletion-nominator's own efforts. The deletion-nominator and I both have been running Google searches on "Natchez Trace" and bumping into band coverage, due to a dispute started by the deletion-nominator over routine disambiguation of the term "Old Natchez Trace" to cover several U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed places of that name.  Dispute started by the deletion-nominator's deletion of a disambiguation page.  In discussion at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) and/or in related pages, I have referred to the deletion-editor's efforts as showing apparent malice.  There is a lot of history here.


 * About the deletion-nominator's own views on the band(s), the deletion-nominator herself (her choice to give gender) added a red-link from the Nick Strutt article to "Natchez Trace (band)" several days ago, which i had not noticed until i created the current article about the current bands and checked "what links here". That introduced some of the confusion.  The deletion-nominator has also stated to me that "I share your view that this probably is a notable topic".  Seems like some tags and/or some fixing are in order, but this AFD smells bad!  --doncram (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If anything smells bad, it's the article. I did not "add" a redlink to Nick Strutt; rather, I discovered a link in that article that was blue because it incorrectly pointed to Natchez Trace, and I converted it to a redlink pointing to Natchez Trace (band). As for my comment that "this probably is a notable topic," you are quoting me out of context. I went on to say: "However, the article that you created is not ready for prime time. It should be moved into your user space, without a redirect, until it is better developed and notability is clear. I am making this comment so as to give you the chance to move the page yourself and request speedy deletion of the redirect. If you don't do it yourself, it is likely to be done for you (not necessarily by me)." --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that i am trying to misrepresent by selective quoting, suggesting at my talk page just now that i am the antagonistic one and that I am perhaps misogynist too, and plenty of other instances show bad faith abundantly present. Since my comment above, she has redirected a different article i created, too!  I am dumbfounded by the heaps of abuse being spewed by Orlady at various Talk pages.  I have previously and again requested that Orlady just stop.  It's amounting to wp:harassment.  It is making the editing environment intolerable.
 * About this band article, I think it is beyond my ability now to deal with Orlady's attention on this to her satisfaction. If another editor or two would step in to improve the article, i would be grateful. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, i Oppose deletion of the article; I !vote for Keep.  It is not "pointless" to have this article.  It's worthwhile to have the article if only to sort out the relationships of multiple bands of the same name, like in a set index article on bands of the same name.  I so far chose to focus on the 2 bands that seem most prominent;  i became aware of the Michigan band but did not choose to comment on it.  Perhaps the article should evolve to cover that too.  Starting an article at this level may not be how Orlady wants for the wikipedia to be developed, in general, and/or she is finding it personally interesting to attack this article associated with me personally.  I do think her focus upon my edits has morphed into a vendetta.  Stub articles are in fact allowed in Wikipedia.  The article's content is sourced, generally reliably enough for the assertions included.  There is no damaging information or BLP issues present. --doncram (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't an AfD, it's another expression of the stupid fighting between these users. And the original  article verges on violating WP:POINT.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no notability for any of these bands, the awards appear minor, the charting not good enough. Having a notable member does not make a band notable. Articles don't exist to tell us about non notable bands that happen to share the same name. Even if they were notable they would be on seperate pages with disambiguation to identify and find them. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added info based on Orlady's research above about the Nick Strutt one of these bands to the article. It seems to have 3 albums at least;  I note that the wp:band criteria states that having 2 albums on a major label meets the criteria for notability.  Also, Orlady seems to believe that one is notable.  Also there is plenty of other info in the article already.  If you wish, call this an article about that notable band, with bonus of the article mentioning other bands of the same name.  Or call this a set-index article, see wp:SIA, which serves a function like disambiguation.  It seems useful to identify out the various bands of this name, for clarity, so that the notable ones among them can be properly covered.  It would seem unhelpful to lose the work done so far in sorting this out, which would just make it harder again in the future to sort out the facts about the one or two or three of these that the deletion-nominator and i actually believe are in fact notable.  The AFD, again, seems to be about the deletion-nominator's wish to punish me personally, or something like that, for having created a stub article not up to her personal standards.  Again, it is okay in Wikipedia to have stub articles. --doncram (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those additions do not change the basic situation -- this page still does not deserve to exist in article space. This is a collection of poorly sourced factoids and "seems to be" statements about several different entities (i.e., bands) that share the sane name. Although it is true that I have said that I think at least one of these bands probably is notable, notability has not yet been demonstrated for any of them. In response to the statement about stub articles -- yes, Wikipedia does have stub articles, but only about notable topics. Similarly, set-index articles do exist in Wikipedia, but not when none of the items indexed in the article is independently notable.
 * As for the statement that I "wish" to "punish" Doncram for creating an article not up to my "personal standards," I reiterate my past pleas for Doncram to refrain from interpreting disputes as personal attacks -- and please note that the "standards" expressed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to apply to everyone's contributions. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Well, the situation would be resolved if the deletion-moderator, who repeats that she thinks the topic is notable, would improve what she views as poor sourcing. This does have sources. Meanwhile, there are 38,000 entirely unsourced BLPs in Wikipedia.... --doncram (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This isn't about the person who nominated the article for deletion, nor is it about the person who created the article. It's about the article. Although I have said that I think it likely that one or more of the bands called "Natchez Trace" is notable, that's just a hunch. Even if one of these bands turns out to be notable, that would not make the topic of this current article (which is best described as an article about the fact that multiple bands have used this name) notable. I've looked online for information that could substantiate the notability of any of these bands, and I haven't found it. Therefore, I've concluded that the page doesn't belong in Wikipedia article space. Seeing that the person who created the article also isn't interested in documenting the notability of the subject matter, I guess it's time to delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation would be resolved if the article creator would acknoweldge that this page does not belong and call for it's deletion. This page does have sources but they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, although the article creator doesn't have any actual interest in the subject matter of the article, he has made it clear that he's going to insist that it be maintained in article space until such time as an AfD process concludes that it should be deleted. Here's what happened when I userfied the article:
 * 21:42, 1 April 2010 Orlady (moved Natchez Trace (band) to User:Doncram/Natchez Trace (band): Moving to user space so article (or possibly multiple articles) can be developed properly. There are questions of notability, and it appears that this article may confound multiple bands)
 * 22:14, 1 April 2010 Doncram (moved User:Doncram/Natchez Trace (band) to Natchez Trace (band) over redirect: return to mainspace. This is legitimate article with assertion of notability. Mover's focus on this seems a lot like malice. Take to AFD if you wish.)
 * He is making a WP:POINT, and the continuing existence of this article seems to help make his point (not that I can tell you what he's trying to prove). --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you what Orlady is trying to prove either. She has been following my edits and randomly picking one or another to attack, as if on a personal vendetta, like to find places where i can be proven wrong on some point or another.  It often amounts to her finding a different way, not necessarily a better way, to present something.  In the process, in trying to prove me wrong, she often makes outright errors and often creates presentations that are more than arguably worse than what she is replacing.  Her point seems to be that another way is possible, anything other than the way that i chose.  I do have difficulty hearing / sorting out Orlady's legitimate points, which she does sometimes make, because they are mixed in with falsehoods and errors and personal jabs.  There is a long and lengthening history here.  I would welcome third party views about this article, separate from Orlady's, which i have to discount.  --doncram (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This WP:AFD section is for discussing this one specific article, not discussing (much less attacking) other people. The above paragraph does not belong here. If you wish to present a list of offenses that I have allegedly committed, including but presumably not limited to "following edits", "randomly picking one or another to attack", pursing a "personal vendetta," making "outright errors", "creating presentations that are more than arguably worse than what she is replacing", "falsehoods and errors and personal jabs", please move your accusations to an appropriate noticeboard -- and provide diffs to substantiate your accusations. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! What a joke!  What a fine speech!  What rubbish!  Ha ha ha!  You have me ROTFL.  The hypocrisy is astounding!  I have, so many times, asked you at your Talk page to participate in a mediation process, and you have either said no or not replied.  Gimme a break.  Give everyone else a break.  When you are serious about actually stopping the long-running contention between you and me, which spills like diarrhea throughout hundreds of Talk pages and snide, sarcastic edit summaries of hundreds of mainspace articles by now, please, PLEASE, do let me know!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha!  How amusing!!!!  Fines speech!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha!!!!! --doncram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct, i do not acknowledge that this should be deleted. I think it is a legitimate wikipedia article topic.  I will admit freely that i am not an expert on bands / music notability practices in wikipedia.  I have created only a few articles in the music area, and it is not easy for me to find good sources and construct fully accepted solid references like other music articles have.  I also acknowledge this article is currently a bit different than other band articles that I have browsed, in that it is about a host of bands of the same name, of which one or two or more are likely to be individually notable.  I believe that it covers enough points of albums and awards and so on that there is clearly notability here, for individual ones and/or for the collection.  I don't see in the music notability standards a specific example of a set index article on bands.  Can you point me to one?  It seems not to be banned by policy nor to be explicitly approved by policy.  Given that it may exist as a set index article on the multiple bands, or that it may be converted into an article about one with a discussion of other bands having the same name, I think this is valid and it should be kept and improved. --doncram (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I have reviewed the references in the article and have been unable to find any reliable sources for any of the bands discussed in the article. As such, the article should be deleted for failing Verifiability and Notability (music). If/when sources can produced to establish the notability for any of the bands discussed in the article, an article about that topic can be created. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2010 (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.