Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lafontaines


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lafontaines

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

This particular article is slightly better than Yoshi, however it is written like an advertisement and looks as if members of the band have wrote the majority of the article. The intro say's "local unsigned band", i'm not sure one cite from The Times really justifies the existence of the article. It's very weasely and POV, more importantly it lacks notability, maybe someone can prove me wrong but i haven't seen anything noteworthy, which supports this articles existence.Under the extension stairs (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is written like an advert, as if it's trying to promote the band somewhat. The cite from The Times is from 2008 and since then the band don't appear to have made much in the way of publicity, therefore it's slightly irrelevant. Telling from their Myspace page, they're not exactly touring the length and breadth of the country either. The history section is too detailed and lists numerous venues, which countless unsigned bands in Scotland have probably played. The phrase "fans and critics alike" seems to pop up, though without any citations to back up the claim. The mention of Don Lafontaine having support for the band without a reliable source is just absurd. Take a look at The Ronelles for example, they released an album, which got considerable press coverage, despite the fact that they've disbanded, their article is a stub. This article is the opposite and seems to tell us everything about the band, full of POV, violating Wikipedia's main principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  T · C 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep suggesting a ref doesn't count because it's from 2008 (how I read the above) is strange. Yes thinks article is badly written and sourced. needs to be majorly trimmed. as for notability, the issue here, there is the Sunday Times article included, short article from The Herald (which also verifies Tom Morton's description) in 09, "soundcheck" by Rick Fulton in Scottish Daily Record, 27 February 2009 and in 2010 (this year) Exposure: The LaFontaines by: Paul MacDonald from List.co.uk 3 February 2010 (not sure about rs). plus the Hamilton Advertiser give a liitle more. looks like just enough coverage duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The Times article is certainly significant coverage in a very good reliable source. Add in the local newspaper coverage and there's enough for notability. In addition to these there is also an article from The List here, The (Glasgow) Herald, and the Wishaw Press.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 14 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.