Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Orange Lights


 * 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  07:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Orange Lights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A quite long-standing article that fails WP:BAND. No references besides a MySpace link, very little content, and there's not a great deal on the internet besides some very brief coverage dated to 2007 as The Guardian's New Band of the Week (link). Most trace of the band is gone, so as best I can tell they were one of the many to sign to a major and then fade away. Two of their members presently have articles, but I don't feel this meets point six of WP:NMUSIC as one of them appears to have purely been a session musician for bands, hence why he - Jason Hart (musician) - is now at AFD too. It's not clear that the other member with one, Paul Tucker (musician), is independently notable either so I've nominated him as well. KaisaL (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. I actually think this article would be a viable candidate for speedy deletion per A7. Kurtis (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wouldn't be viable for A7 after all, seeing as Paul Tucker is a member of Lighthouse Family. However, notability is not inherited, and this particular band has done nothing of real significance. Kurtis (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both as failing WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough coverage to demonstrate notability:, , , , . --Michig (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The last two links are local newspapers, for a start, which cover thousands of bands. Useful for referencing, but not for asserting notability. The All Music biography can't give any more of an achievement than "gaining an important ally" (a radio DJ) and playing some shows. This is hardly a good sign, and having an All Music page isn't a criteria for inclusion. The Guardian piece is a website series on new bands, which hardly qualifies them. It's far too easy - and is AFD's biggest problem - to point to notable publications and say that means a subject is notable. I see nothing significant about their achievements and no sustained, significant level of coverage for this band to be included at all. KaisaL (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:GNG. The coverage itself makes the subject notable, it doesn't have to indicate significant achievements. All newspapers are local to somewhere. Two newspapers from Manchester and Nottingham can't both be local to the band. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the policy. I disagree that this is significant coverage; Band after band after band gets the odd brief piece on a news website or via regional newspapers. There is nothing to indicate the coverage was high-profile, or sustained, or substantial. What you are saying is that just because a subject has been covered by a source, it automatically justifies inclusion; that is a most alarming precedent to suggest. The content and the prominence of the sources matters just as much, if not more, than the title of the source. KaisaL (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To evaluate sources provided by Michig. SST flyer  01:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST  flyer  01:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (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.