Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thirteenth Step (band)


 * 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 to delete, after 1 month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thirteenth Step (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local band. Subject has no secondary reliable sources that I can find in the article or otherwise. All cites seems to be from music cataloging or social media sites. The article has various other issues, like with weight and tone. MTV Unplugged appearance listed in the article doesn't appear on MTV's site, and its audio, with background chatter, doesn't seem authentic. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In case anyone is wondering why I've put up an article I've put some time into for deletion, it's because I like to give new articles a chance to prove themselves. Unfortunately, this one hasn't done that.  For all the cites shown in the article, it's really just a baffling array of primary cites.  My tag to request secondary sources (along with additional research for this AfD) have proven fruitless. I think it's time to give up on this article.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final. Nordic  Nightfury  10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The nominator puts forward a good case, I don't see any independent coverage of the band even from local sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BAND #4 is "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". According to the article, they've toured nationally in, not just any country but a particularly large, populous, and rich country (the United States), opening for 17+ bluelinked bands.


 * WP:BAND #5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", the latter defined as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". I don't know if Dirty Water Records qualifies, but at any rate they look like a legit operation.


 * And there's a ridiculous number of refs. There are 138 refs. Most band articles have like four. OK most of the sources are not useful. However, primary sources are not forbidden, you know. And it's an OK article. It's too long and there are too many bad refs. It's the opposite of the problem we usually have, articles that are just a stub and can't be expanded. But you can't say there isn't useful ref'd info in the article.


 * Since it meets WP:BAND (I guess) and is a fully complete article, the burden would be on the editors who want to delete the article despite that. I haven't seen a good argument to that effect. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you name just one of these refs that are acceptable for our use? That would help us out here.  Sometimes an article writer will use a lot of cites (in this case, none apparently independent or secondary) to protect an article from proper analysis (what I would call "baffling with bullshit"). We have to be prepared to do that analysis. As for WP:BAND, the arguments seem light especially considering that we have nothing to support WP:GNG at this point that I can tell.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 05:00, 2 December 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.

I've tired to fix this page with most of true facts with less words as I could and as a result the page went back to what it was I also tried to make Michael Cash (Musician) was declined and it was much more sourced then this one is and a lot of listed said stuff in this page seems more like it was written to trash the artists name more so than to make public know the band had existed I know Michael Cash saw the page and commented on Juggalo Drama Alert a public YouTube platform that this Wikipedia page was in fact fake and poorly sourced about a underground rock band he went on to say he contacted one of the people listed in the editors process with no luck. - Dainbramaged502 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)