Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Merchants


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Soul Merchants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article doesn't indicate anything that would make the band notable per WP:NMUSIC. Looking at the sourcing in the article to see whether they would pass WP:GNG, I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The 'Colorado New Wave/Punk Rock' article gives them a couple of passing mentions (and I'm not sure about its reliability); the Midheaven site is selling their record (not independent); The 'Exclaim! Exclaim' review is significant coverage, but I'm doubtful as to its reliability - I can't find an 'About' section on the website, but it looks like it's written by contributors so likely a WP:UGC review; Discogs and Allmusic are directory listings with no significant content; the Smooch Records site is their record label - not independent. I looked for better sourcing, but didn't find anything better - just more UGC reviews and the like. (Watch out when searching for sourcing - there is at least one other band with this name). So, this doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The Exclaim! source is fine, and I found a review in The Marquee . There's likely to be coverage from the 80s that won't be online. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you, Michig. I remember there were other reputable sources that mentioned this group more than 10 years ago, however, it seems like those webpages/websites don't exist anymore. Also I agree, there were probably more coverage about this band from the 1980s that haven't been mentioned online as well. I've also added sources such as the Daily Camera newspaper and Westword online newspaper into this article. Ninmacer20 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you mind expanding on why the Exlaim! source is fine? I'm not familiar with it, so could be speaking out of turn here, but their website says that they accept contributions from the public ('Get Published'), and I'm not seeing the author of that review on their staff list - that's why I was suspicious that this was WP:UGC with uncertain editorial oversight - not the sort of thing we should be using to establish notability. The Marquee review you found is three sentences long - can we really call that in-depth treatment? The Daily Camera piece gives even less coverage - a passing mention in a single sentence. The Westword one looks like the best of the bunch actually - that's a decent length, and written by someone who appears to be a staff writer, but on its own it doesn't establish notability, and I'd still lean towards delete unless you can set me straight on the Exclaim ref.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclaim! is specifically included as a reliable source at WikiProject Albums/Sources. It may be willing to take on new contributors (as is true with most online magazines), but as long as there's editorial oversight there's no problem. --Michig (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm - interesting. I see that it was added to that list after a discussion with a single participant, who added it to the list when nobody responded. I've always considered sites like that to be in the same category as Forbes contributors, as described at WP:RSP, but perhaps I'm out of step. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclaim! is a printed magazine based in Canada and distributed worldwide, its in my local shop in Scotland, it obviously has an editorial team and has a good reputation for music subjects. The website is an extension of the magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , can't we say the same for Forbes though? Printed magazine, reliable source for staff-written content, but they also have a website that accepts stuff written by just about anyone, with minimal editorial oversight. We do not accept articles by Forbes contributors as RS, or as establishing notability - is this site any different? Girth Summit  (blether)  10:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless there is evidence they've printed anything unreliable we can't criticise their editorial oversight, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Per this thread on RSN, it seems that the community is not urgently concerned about the use of Exclaim! as a source, and so on the strength of that review, and the Westword one, this band probably makes it through GNG, and so I am happy to withdraw the nomination, with apologies to . I'd close this myself, but haven't gotten around to learning how to use those buttons yet. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:49, 20 January 2020 (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.