Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Light


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Old Light

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Band and album The Dirty Future have coverage in local and student press but aside from that I only found one review, in PopMatters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. In terms of notability, the PopMatters review is a pretty good start, but I can't find anything else apart from local coverage, so I cannot see how these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for the feedback. Additional information and references have been added including references to Old Light's connections to important bands. While true this is an indie band whose releases to date are sub-major label, they are currently a well respected and important part of the Pacific Northwest music scene, and have many significant connections to important bands and personnel. Old Light may be small, but they are growing fast and certainly meet the basic criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Thank you for your time. User_talk:Kwikiphone —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for participating . It doesn't really matter that Old Light's releases have not been on major labels. While it is clear that they have some affiliations to some notable people in the scene, notability is not inherited, and it just isn't clear how these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. The PopMatters review is the kind of thing we are looking for - if there were just a few more examples of coverage in reliable sources like this then I'd be inclined to !vote to keep this article, but as it stands I just can't see much beyond local coverage, and that isn't enough to be included here. — sparklism hey! 14:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 12:47, 11 February 2014 (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.