Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies

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

I know the guy who wrote this, and he compiled the article in its entirety directly from an interview with the lead singer. What more do you need to hear? It is totally legit.

Local band that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, despite a couple of reviews in local media. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This band has been reviewed in both Paste (magazine) and Curve (magazine) on top of being listed on the blog site, Idolator as No.1 for the "Top 40 of 2007" Also, bassist Alex Maiolo also plays in the band Hi Fi Sky with Tim Sommer Blu3cat (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the references for the VVLL articles in Paste< -- its not available online unfortunately. I was notified about the reviews in the magazine, but did not have access to provide accurate references, since I do not own any subscription. I believe the only question left is that of blatant adverstisement. Could you point out the issues that concern you most? If you think about it, any wikipedia article for a band is advertisement inadvertantly. There are no advertised shows, album sales or any sales pitches for one to listen to the band. Clarification would be great because the band is notable enough to deserve an article. Mfleader 1 December 2008
 * Weak keep. The article still looks way too promotional, but I think the sources establish notability. TheLetterM (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is established through authoritative, independent, third-party, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The independent third parties of importance are the news stations WRAL-TV, Curve (magazine), Paste (magazine), The News & Observer, and Idolator.com. In addition under WP:MUSIC, they also establish notability in being the most prominent representative of the style neo-psychedelia in the Chapel Hill music scene. Both news stations are the major new stations in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle. This is the second largest metropolitan demographic area in the state behind Charlote-Gastonia-Salisbury, which is mostly Charlotte anyways. Please refer North Carolina for demographics. The question of blatant advertisement still stands and I will gladly handle it if clarification is given. Mfleader 1 December 2008  20:33 Eastern Time (US & Canada) (I don't know what time zone everyone else is posting from)

Okay, the poetic flourishes are unintentional, but I am getting better and will cut them out in the future, but Drmies you did cut out the entire band's history rather than make the necessary deletions. Every band on wikipedia has a history, so i will continue to re-edit the page in order to make it satisfactory. Mfleader 20:56 (eastern time)

I haven't found anything on wikipedia about citing a personal interview with a band member. Or does it just not count because I do not count as a reputable source? Mfleader 22:07 01 December 2008(Eastern time)
 * I think that as long as the interview was published in a reliable source it's ok. If it was personal though (you interviewing a band member that wasn't for a publication), there's no real way to gauge the verifiability of that interview, and thus can't be cited as a source. What I think is more frowned upon is if it was published by the band itself. TheLetterM (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Now, verifiability can be achieved in any number of ways--the interview could be published, for instance. But that the source be independent, that's another matter. Moreover, and this goes directly to the flourishes, the information in an encyclopedic matter needs to be relevant. The band's history may well be relevant, but who met how when and where, and what they talked about, and how they hit it off, in most cases that's simply not relevant--and the cases where it is relevant, well, you're talking George Martin and the Beatles, or Rick Rubin and Johnny Cash. VV is not there yet. Hairsalon Moshi Moshi? A birthday party? How is that not chit-chat, as my dissertation director used to call my flourishes? It's little things like 'as previously stated.' If it was previously stated, why say it again? In an article about a band that has one EP, an article that calls for three paragraphs at the most? I'm not sure, Mfleader, if you realize that what you might think of as rigorous edits actually increase the chance of the article surviving Afd. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand and I will be even more rigorous in deleting minor details you refer to as poetic flourishes. I was under the impression a poetic flourished only involved floury wording, which I am trying to cut out. However, I am determined to redeem this article. Even the meanest, bare-bones history of a band's origin and formation is entirely relevant and necessary in an entry in an encyclopedia; it does not become relevant after a #1 hit or gold album. It was important beforehand. I understand that since they are a relatively new band there will only be a minor entry. Have the issues of notability and blatant advertisement been dealt with thoroughly? Mfleader 21:48, 01 December 2008 (Eastern Time)
 * The article is much, much better than it was. At least now it's less a blog entry than an encyclopedia entry--the idolator and eardrumsmusic entries are written in pretty much the same style as the earlier versions. Still, and this in reference to the idolator entry (scroll down), the only hair salon I know that is relevant in music is found on "Oh My Lord" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, No More Shall We Part. Seriously, the article still has a lot of fluff.
 * Now, if the community agrees that the article from the Newsobserver and the Indy blog have enough weight (cause the others really are just blogs, with little or no authority), then WP:N might be established. But I still say that the article is way, way too long for a band that hasn't achieved that much yet (doesn't WP:Music mention two albums, on a major label?). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not discount the "blog" interview on WRAL, while it is a blog, the WRAL news station is definitely a reputable source, hence their electronic authors on their blogs receive the same credence they do. Nor should you forget the reviews in the magazines previously mentioned. I hope that helps my argument. I took out the part about the hair salon too. Yes WP:Music does mention 2 albums on a major label or active indie label (how ironic would a major indie label be?). Their next album is due out this spring, I know that doesn't mean anything right now, but I guarantee to repost the article upon that release if the community does not feel it meets notability standards now. Mfleader 22:16 01 December 2008 (eastern time)
 * Mfl, please refer to the Talk page--we're well outside of what should be discussed of AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now--while I don't have easy access to two more of the sources mentioned, I have faith that they're there. Moreover, the author, who is new to WP, is working really hard on this and we'll make this look good; I will accept the band's notability. Dear Admins, sorry for messing up the AfD page; I should have moved to the Talk page sooner. Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The magazine articles would seem to meet our requirements for notability in good sources. Nicely done article too. (Maybe they should come to England and play next years Beautiful Days (festival)) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 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.