Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The One Ensemble Of Daniel Padden


 * 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. No consensus on whether the available sourcing is sufficient for the band itself to pass WP:GNG, or whether the available sourcing is primarily about Padden or the band. -Scottywong | prattle _ 16:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The One Ensemble Of Daniel Padden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band fails to meet WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BAND. No reliable sources or significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again, where did you look? --Michig (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No significant coverage in Google News archive, Nexis, or Google Books. --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple coverage in The Wire, including a review of the Oriole album in the October 12 issue, one from 2007 (there are more), FACT magazine, Allmusic review, Allmusic review, The List, Gigwise.com, Press and Journal. The band has included several notable musicians from other bands, passing another criterion of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of these are undeniably passing references, and many don't even mention "The One Ensemble," just Padden. I would say this is trivial coverage.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The One Ensemble effectively is Padden plus whatever musicians he gets involved, and the review of the One Ensemble album in the latest issue of The Wire and the Allmusic review of Wayward the Fourth are significant coverage of the One Ensemble. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of coverage. Does not meet the WP:GNG. What passes for references, according to Michig, persuade me that no actual references exist. Needs significant coverage on the actual topic, not trivial mentions, according to the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. His website calls the band daniel padden & the one ensemble. Mirror May 20, 2005 calls it The One Ensemble of Daniel Padden. Herald May 19, 2007 calls it "sets by the One Ensemble, Daniel Padden's avant-folk collective." Aberdeen Press & Journal October 31, 2009 calls it "Mr Padden will also be performing, as The One Ensemble, at Aberdeen's Peacock." Herald July 26, 2010 calls it "second support band The One Ensemble, who combine trombone, violin and Japanese drumming with Daniel Padden's voice for some playfully strident mediterranean mediaeval baroque." These quotes provide most of the material available on the topic. What ever the name of the topic is, there is not enough reliable source material for a stand alone article on the topic per WP:GNG. -- -Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the articles in The Wire? What do they say? Or do you believe that everything that exists can be found on Google?--Michig (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like an article-naming issue. There's no doubt that Padden and several variations of these names are notable, per The Wire, FACT, allmusic, etc. Even if you wanted separate pages for all of these (for some reason), this particular one would be notable per reviews in Stylus and The Wire  86.44.49.108 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Appears to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1, with significant coverage in The Wire, Allmusic, Stylus Magazine. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND per Paul Erik's citations. --Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 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.