Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Latch Brothers


 * 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   keep. After new sources were found.  Sandstein  07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Latch Brothers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Totally lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:BANDor WP:GNG … beau coup links to IMDb are meaningless. &mdash; The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This was my first article and I stand corrected I had no idea the IMDB links were meaningless, so my apologies and hope to see this article stay. It is a work in progress and this will grow. Thanks, Kurt N. Kurtnardone (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Userfy. Of the sources given, two of them are identical to each other. They're both the same article that was given to different news sites, so I'm not sure that it should or could be used twice as a source. Other than that article, there's nothing listed that would be considered to be reliable sources. The Last Fm link is more of a listing, which is considered to be a trivial source. Given that there are some big names involved in this, it's worth userfying (WP:USERFY) until/if the point comes where more reliable sources are found. (Although be aware that notability is not inherited even though the people involved are notable. WP:NOTINHERITED.)I would recommend a brief mention on the pages of each person involved in the group, though. (Just listing this out since Kurtnardone is new so he can earmark these for future notice.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Userfy. There's an article in Vibe that can be used. Agree with Tokyogirl79's suggestion of brief mention on member's pages, at least until a more substantial base of sources can be found. I'm scouring google now but there isn't much in the way of press.Galadrist (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy Wp:notability is possible, but this article has certainly not yet established it. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on the good MTV source, the Vibe source, which is at least more than a press release, and the competing redirect targets. it's highly unlikely that this project will become any more notable. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per  Tokyogirl79. Currently fails WP:BAND but the creator appears to b confident that notability will be asserted when more sources have been found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added some sources to the article. I think there's enough there now that this should be kept, or at the very least merged to a section in the Mike D article.--Michig (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Close to "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" under WP:BAND if not already there.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Per coverage from MTV and Vibe Magazine. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Per coverage added and reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2012 (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.