Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The electra


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn, many new sources added to the article Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The electra

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Band fails WP:Music--one record, and coverage only in odd journals/magazines, most of them written by one single person (only with the greatest imagination can these be called independent, third-party, in-depth), and nothing else worth noting. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - I also recommend that this article be deleted as an NN personality associated with the subject (fails WP:ENTERTAINER): ""Happy Editing! &mdash;  03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article has been deleted before as CSD A7. &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the nominator: I will gladly entertain the motion brought forward by 72.etc--and I'll second it too. Brian Nixon is as non-notable as The electra, by the same guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Electra is an important group to the history of hip hop. As the founding group of two of hip-hop's influential personages (Jank and Wolf), this article should remain. It must be pointed out that both Jank and Wolf have been featured in books, magazines, and countless of articles.  Jank has won European (Spanish) awards for his art. Though little has been written (until recently) about their founding group, The Electra (largely through interviews with the third member), this should have little impact on whether or not one should keep the article.  As further historical study on Jank and Wolf comes to fruition, this article can act as a catalyst for cultural and historical inquiry into the impact of underground hip-hop. MJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2008
 * Comment - That may all be true, but none of it is referenced from the article, and some of the links that you have provided (like TV Guide) are not reliable sources … you really need to understand WP:V and WP:RS. "'Though little has been written (until recently) about their founding group, … this should have little impact on whether or not one should keep the article.'" Au contrair ... that is the essence of WP:RS ... if it ain't been reported elsewhere, we can't be the first to report it ... that's called original research, and it is forbidden by the policies and guidelines. "'… this article can act as a catalyst for cultural and historical inquiry into the impact of underground hip-hop.'"  … please see What Wikipedia is not. &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep .Thanks for the clarification. I went ahead and expanded the article to include original sources from the era, as well as books, magazines and publications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout ... please see this note about formatting external links, and edit to see how the   and   tags work. :-) &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep . Will do.  Thanks for the help.  You help is greatly appreciated.
 * Single recommendation per editor, please. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article should remain. There are several Wikipedia internal links within this article, and I agree that the band is notable and has contributed to musical history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added some new original research. I will format it as I go along. I beleive 18 references should be enough for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ManJank- you must be a fan! Good for you.  A great band. Bygrace3  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 72.75.110.31- thanks for your help. I think Manjank must be new. I have nothing really to say about the Nixon article- most likely, it should be deleted. But, I definitely think that we should keep the Electra page. There is enough concise, original information and many accurate references to warrant its inclusion on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bygrace3 – Take a look at  for an example of proper footnotes using   and   templates. :-) &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 72. Thanks, I will look up the William Munroe site. I should have it finished by tomorrow afternoon. I really appreciate your help :)
 * Bygrace3- Wow! Great research.Thank you. Yes, I am a fan. Can you tell by my name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 72.75.110.31 I'm finished with the Electra article. Thank you for your help with the references. I definitely think it is worth keeping. Do you have any other suggestions or improvements?
 * ManJank- here you go. Glad to be of help. I, too, am a Jank fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 72.75.110.31Thanks again for everything! Grasshopper's tired and will work on it again tomorrow :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work by all involved. Note: these sources that have raised the level of the article could only have been found by those close to the action, so to speak. I withdraw my nomination for deleting The electra, but this leaves the question of Brian Nixon--any admins around who can answer this? Renominate separately? Because in all honesty, I still don't see notability for that article (the books, for instance, published by a church press, and no independent, third-party sources. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, 72. you are a great teacher. i don't have any feeling with Nixon article. I tried to clean it up some (but i'm new at this). I may have been a little too pro Electra. sorry. MJ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 72 I've tried to make some of your recommendations on cite books, etc. But the Wikipedia citation templates seem to be leading me astray... as you may be able to tell. Any suggestions? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of the first one with a URL:""
 * generates:""
 * I just used Cite web as a "generic" template (note that the order of the arguments does not matter, so editing is Very Easy) ... leave cite journal for the peer-reviewed publications. :-) &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. – Regarding notability, it's not the quantity, but the quality of the reliable sources ... one "clue" of meeting WP:RS is if the publication has a Wikipedia article to which it can be linked, such as The New York Times ... half a dozen links to NN personal websites and blogs do not WP:RS make. &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2008 (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.