Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Be the Echo


 * 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 to delete. The proffered sources go a long way to meeting concerns about sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We Be the Echo

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

Not notable. See, for example, There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag  ☼  08:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment I've added sources to the article. If there were just one or two reviews or articles, I'd say that notability is in question, but with at least four articles on this band I think they are notable enough. However, I'm sure the reliability of these sources can be discussed, as even I'm a little on the fence about them. Jeremiah (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response It depends on what you think is 'notable enough' Suntag. While We Be The Echo are a smaller band, they are an important current band in their genre, and in my opinon its unfair to 'delete' a band that has a worldwide appeal. There are pages of reviews etc. if you do a basic google search on the band, and they are often mentioned in other band's 'influences'. I agree that every small time band/writer etc should not be on wikipedia, however, any artist that has a worldwide following, even a modest one should be on wikipedia to be researched.Gusak
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, would appear to meet criteria #1 of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete - band fails WP:BAND, including #1 (no articles from independent, reliable sources about the band - the links are to reviews for an album by the group or are promotional in nature). Now think about this: how could a strictly local (San Francisco) band have an independent article about it... from Canada? B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, indie bands will often try to get info on them published by sending material to non-local press. For instance, my site frequently gets press releases and promo material from bands in the US, even though we are based in Brisbane.  It doesn't strike me as strange at all that a Canadian site would cover a US band.  Also, not all of the links shown are reviews, such as this one.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:54, 7 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.