Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Orange Lights (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After two relistings, the discussion doesn't seem any closer to consensus. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Orange Lights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dated article with no references created by SPA. 9 years on, the band does not seem to sufficiently have met WP:Music or even the broader WP:GNG. One album (Life is Still Beautiful has little coverage (also being AfD'd here). Very little notable coverage - all i could find was this Guardian band of the day article. Rayman60 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per first AfD. Enough coverage to demonstrate notability:, , , , . --Michig (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The first AfD discussion is located at Articles for deletion/The Orange Lights. North America1000 02:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - In response to Michig's 5 examples of coverage that confers notability, which were also in the original AfD, I respectfully disagree. 1: Guardian new band of the day - this is done every day, was on over 1700 in 2014. I believe that a considerable proportion of these bands fail to ever reach significant notability. 3 & 4: These are just album reviews. When I used to read print publications, having an article or coverage required a certain degree of notability. Having an album reviewed required your PR guy sending a free CD to the office well before the deadline. 5: This is a local newspaper article interviewing one member of the band that mentions the band but is not specifically about them.   There are mentions of them on the web enough for someone to consider sufficient notability, but for me I think these do not confer notability. Any band that has some sort of PR machine behind them (they were on Warner Music) would have had a trace in these sort of publications, but this isn't enough for me hence the D vote/nomination.Rayman60 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would note that the first deletion was closed on a rationale of no consensus due to a lack of participation. The closing user - not an administrator - was challenged on four such closures in a 48 hour space. Four participants is well above what we'd usually consider a quorum here, and so I consider that close to be incorrect. and  You both participated in the previous debate and your return here to reaffirm your views would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per the original AFD, this is a band that achieved nothing of note, meets no part of WP:MUSIC, and folded without fanfare. The brief coverage linked was not sustained and is not substantial. It is the biggest problem with music AFDs - I feel I'm saying this a lot - that users dig up a handful of press pieces from what may seem like important sources, and say that these mean it meets the criteria because there is evidence of "coverage". On any degree of investigation, this coverage comes from either minor sources (e.g. local newspapers), or from major sources, but buried on their website or as part of a series on new bands (as with The Guardian link here). The argument for inclusion is that a vast, daily, web-only series on new bands, that covers hundreds of them, an album review via a mid-level website, and two local newspaper pieces (one of which isn't even primarily about the band) is enough for this band to meet the criteria for inclusion. The barrel has been well and truly scraped to even dig those up as the total sum of this band's coverage, and not one of them brings The Orange Lights close to notability. KaisaL (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have well established general and subject-specific guidelines, and quite simply, this band satisfies both. I'm alarmed and disappointed that over the course of 2 AfDs now nobody else has been able to find coverage beyond the (perfectly good) Guardian article. I just searched again and found the following additional examples of coverage: The Journal, KCRW performance, Birmingham Mail, Liverpool Echo. I would also like to point out that web searches usually only find a subset of all the coverage that exists, so it should not be assumed that these 9 sources represent everything that exists. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. And here's some coverage from the NME about their headlining set in New York, and further NME items confirming the band's appearances at major UK festivals:, and the album got a review in the Scottish Sun which is partially visible from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) And here's another review of the album from Gigwise: . --Michig (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None of this changes my view at all. For a start, most of these links are local media, mostly within the same newspaper group in fact. They're restricted, broadly, to the What's On section of the websites and you will find that thousands upon thousands of bands are covered in this way. To pick out one: The Liverpool Echo piece is a selection of snippets and a preview of a gig at a tiny venue in Liverpool. This isn't significant or substantial coverage. The radio station is local, the NME piece is just about the Club NME series which isn't the same as being covered by NME, as it's actually just a night that's put on for new bands in London. I can't help but feel like what we have here is two users - myself and Rayman60 - that are familiar with the intricacies of the music press, and yourself, who is broadly bringing up names of publications without actually looking at the content. The entire content of one of your links is, "Newcastle quintet, Orange Lights, perform their melodic and beautiful songs on Morning Becomes Eclectic at 11:15am." If we're going to start having articles for bands that were in a couple of new band feature series and a slew of local newspapers then we'd run out of bandwidth. On the topic of the festival appearances, if you are familiar with The Great Escape you would know it's a festival for new bands, and the other one is that they opened the fifth and smallest stage at V Festival, so we're hardly talking the main stage at Glastonbury here. And finally, Gigwise for all intents and purposes is a music blog and again covers band upon band, it's not a major publication. Maybe if there were hundreds of these pieces, we'd have a point, but as Rayman60 correctly pointed out, The Orange Lights briefly had major label backing so it would be normal that there'd be the odd review. This is another long comment, so I'll sum it up as such: The coverage you are linking is not substantial, significant or sustained, much of it is within publications that are unsuitable for establishing notability, and the coverage in those that are is fleeting or within series that by their very nature cover tons of bands that never became notable. Thus, I see no reason not to delete. KaisaL (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the Great Escape festival is/was all about 'new music', not 'new bands', hence the line up that year listed in that article consisting of pretty much all notable bands. Gigwise is an accepted reliable source, not a 'blog'. The main NME article is about a headline show in New York City, not "a night that's put on for new bands in London". Ignoring the notability guidelines, mischaracterizing the coverage. and coming up with the old chestnut about 'running out of bandwidth' gives your arguments little credibility. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's much "desperate" about my critiquing your sources - my apologies that I like to make a thorough case at AFD rather than just allow a few links swing a situation. I haven't seen one user actually back up your case on the band or its members. We will see how it goes, but I still maintain that your knowledge of the nuances of the music press is a little bit limited if you consider this to be a significant sum total of coverage. KaisaL (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Desperate because your critique had little or no basis in fact, and now you resort once again to snide remarks about me, which anyone who knows me IRL would find laughable. Your position is clear, as is mine, so I would suggest we leave it for others to offer their opinions, and the closing admin can judge the merits of the arguments put forward. --Michig (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't feel passionate enough about this article either way to lose any sleep over whether or not it's kept, but for the record, I don't disagree with what I said last time. Kurtis (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment For the purposes of the closing admin, Kurtis' previous comment was a !vote for deletion. KaisaL (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, based on shallow coverage yet lack of significant coverage. has made a good argument for keeping it, based on reviews of their one CD, which normally is sufficient to let an article stay in. In this case, the coverage just seems so basic. There's no argument that they pass WP:MUSICBIO by meeting the usual factors - a hit song, national touring, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Brief but nontrivial coverage in The Guardian, Allmusic, The Skinny, the Manchester Evening News, the Nottingham Post, The Journal (Newcastle upon Tyne), the Birmingham Mail, the Liverpool Echo, NME, and Gigwise, taken together, is more than enough to meet WP:BAND criterion #1.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can call this from the Nottingham Post, which you have cited, anything other than trivial. The band is mentioned twice in passing in two lists of projects. It's utterly irrelevant and suggests you haven't looked at the sources properly. KaisaL (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per 's sources. This article from The Guardian, this article from Trinity Mirror's thejournal.co.uk, this article from Liverpool Echo, and this article from Birmingham Mail provide significant coverage about the subject. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Orange Lights to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:32, 21 August 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.