Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Korah (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. There is a fundamental divide here between those editors who believe GNG is met and those who believe it isn't so I'm closing this as no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sons of Korah (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article is about a minor band and mostly contains links to wordpress blogs and tumblrs, and a couple of very minor archived mentions elsewhere. Primary editors seem to be closely involved with the band (or are just fans, nonetheless). Photonsoup (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG, as the band has been covered by mainstream media in non-trivial articles (the ABC article linked on the website, for example, is not a "minor archived mention" or a blog, there are other articles too if you do a Google search. The band is well known in Christian music in Australia. Perhaps the article needs a cleanup to remove some of the blogs but that's not the purpose of AFD. Deus et lex (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the ABC coverage wasn't trivial. Looking through the link it's essentially a blurb about a small radio story they did. I don't want to speak to how major they are or not, since I'm not in Australia, but almost all the edits to the page are coming from a couple of accounts which also edit ancillary pages such as those about specific albums from the band, and the standard of media coverage in there could be met by any band even slightly larger than a college band, most of whom aren't exactly notable. Photonsoup (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article? I feel sometimes that editors just make dumb arguments about articles to justify deletion and it feels like you have done that here. The article is extensive and discusses and band and the album they did. ABC doesn't publish those things regularly - this does meet significant coverage. There is enough here to keep the article and you should give people the benefit of the doubt. The self-published sources don't mean the article should be deleted, it means it should be cleaned up and AfD is not cleanup. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , please remember to sign your posts and familiarize yourself with Civility and potentially Conflict of interest. Your comment here is not appropriate. Photonsoup (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment are any of their albums actually notable? LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They currently have seven album articles in WP, and all are dependent on blogs and minor directory sites, much like the band's article. If the band is deleted, the albums will have to go, probably via the Speedy Delete process. If the band is kept, I suggest that all the album articles be redirected to the band ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At least one album was already speedy deleted for notability issues. Details here: []. Note that the album pages were made by the same person who made the band's page. Photonsoup (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. A number of sources are self published and lacking in depth. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - but you haven't addressed the fact there are non-self published sources that are more extensive. Please be a bit more reasonable here. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete for the band. See my comment above on the albums; if the band is deleted then delete all the albums too; or if the band is kept then the albums should be redirected. We have seen this pattern occasionally with Christian musicians. This band has been around for a long time with a lot of works, and they clearly have a following within a closed network of church-sponsored associations and events in their region. But unfortunately they just haven't crossed over to mainstream coverage. Yes, they can be found online but only in their own promotional materials, minor gig announcements, or unreliable church publications and social media chatter. There's a lot of it, but it just doesn't add up to the significant and reliable coverage that is necessary for notability in Wikipedia. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - the ABC article is mainstream coverage. It's the Australian national broadcaster. I don't think editors are listening here, there is significant independent coverage. Artists do not have to be "mainstream", that's not Wikipedia policy. Deus et lex (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:SIGCOV. Not only does someone have to be mentioned in a reliable source, but whatever that source talks about has to be significant, and there has to be more than just one such source. Also, "mainstream" in my comment applies to media coverage, not the band. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as well as the ABC radio source there is also significant coverage here in this Cross Rhythmns article which is an established Wikipedia reliable source for christian music so deletion is unnecessary in my view as WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage in Cross Rhythms and the ABC. StAnselm (talk)
 * Comment: Sources such as Cross Rhythmns and ABC keep being mentioned, but none of those sources seem to have any major coverage, as much as they were mentioned. A mere mention in an outside source isn't sufficient for notability, it really feels like a reach to call that serious coverage and I'd encourage anyone reading this discussion to follow through on the sources linked. Photonsoup (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the 1/2 hour episode of ABC Radio dedicated to the group. That's certainly significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I, as an individual, would hit that standard for media. I don't think a single 30 minute story in the band's 28 year history meets WP:SIGCOV. I will reiterate that I don't necessarily know enough to know if this band is notable within Australia or the relevant music community, but I can say what's here doesn't seem sufficient for WP:SIGCOV and the fact that the primary defence against deletion is pointing at the same two articles tells me there isn't sufficient coverage. Again, I could be wrong, but if I'm wrong I'd really love to see an effort to present more significant coverage rather than just pointing at the same couple of articles and insisting it's sufficient. As is it feels like a few people really want this article to meet a notability standard that simply isn't there. Photonsoup (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Cross Rythymns source and ABC are significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional rs coverage here, here, and here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not !voting here. Do these search results help either way? There are no results for the major main stream press for the band's home state.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Cross Rhythms and ABC are both RS and both SIGCOV, GNG is met, and after reviewing the coverage, I agree with St. Anselm, above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG met, see: Cross Rhythms (2x, now), ABC and Sight Magazine articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2022 (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.