Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaura (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaura

deleted, recreated, and now i'm nominating it for deletion. again. same reasons as before. no assertion of notability, etc. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [1] [2] [3] further info [4] [5] [6] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- none of those links are reliable sources. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, here's even more: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read WP:RS. do you seriously not see the difference between roadrunnerrecords.com and bbc.co.uk? Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see more than 1400 hits when searching for roadrunnerrecords.com or blabbermouth.net on Wikipedia. They seem somewhat accepted by the community. I don't expect CNN or BBC to write about rock bands other than the Stones or Floyd.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        that a website is oft cited by wikipedia does not establish notability. there are 30,000+ links on wikipedia to youtube.com [13] but being mentioned on youtube.com no more establishes notability than being mentioned on roadrunnerrecords.com. again, read WP:RS. what's the worst that can happen by reading it, anyway? you might find something you can use against me, you know. you might not, but you won't know until you read it Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you want to tell me? That Youtube is per se an unreliable source? Well then, what about official channels by companies? I remember linking to a video by Gibson guitars about some specifics of a certain guitar model. Some info you couldn't get from anywhere else. What's wrong with that? (And no, don't tell something about 3rd party now). I'm not happy with the background of Roadrunner Records, but Blabbermouth is accepted for its accuracy in rock and metal related news, if you want or not. But you may of course try to get it blacklisted... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        didn't read WP:RS, did you? you know what the roadrunnerrecords.com links you provided look like? press releases. press releases do not establish notability. if you disagree how about you discuss it on WP:BAND. tell the world just how you think being mentioned on roadrunnerrecords.com ought to be sufficient to establish notability? the other links you provided look like self published sources. and the craigslist posting? if that established notability then wikipedia would have an article on every single craigslist posting ever made. but hey - since you think craigslist has such a profound ability to establish notability, why don't you create an article on 1083093634. summarize the craigslist posting and see how long that article lasts. Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Misterdiscreet's comments on requiring reliable sources, which this subject appears to need more to meet WP:MUSIC.Spring12 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no coverage from reliable sources (I didn't find any in Google News either). Drmies (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone has the inclination to do so, they can take a look at Kaura's press page. There are apparently some magazine interviews/profiles that could be verified offline and used to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misterdiscreet appears to mix up two concepts. A source doesn't have to establish notability. It has to be reliable. Not all the sources HexaChord suggested are reliable and even less reach the status of the BBC and cohorts, but just because it's not well-known doesn't mean it's unreliable. Craigslist is obviously out, but Daily Vault clearly has editorial standards. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't !vote "keep" at the moment because I think the article is essentially promotional in nature. I'll check back later to see if it's been improved.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you're proposing that Daily Vault, because of their editorial standards, has the midas touch? forget about creating aticles on craigslist posting numbers - let's create an article for every URL on Daily Vault! obviously, because it's on daily vault, it's notable!! Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as at least some sources have an editorial policy and so meet WP:RS. Thus WP:N is met. Article needs lots and lots of love and stubifiing it might be the right choice at the moment. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean like Daily Vault? check out WP:SPS. it states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable." whether or not they have editorial policies is irrelevant. if i start up my own blog, it'll have editorial policies, as well. namely, that all stories are about me. that's an editorial policy and it's not sufficient to qualify my blog as a reliable source per WP:RS. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [14] looks okay, as does the Daily Vault. See reviewers list. It looks like a site with editors and staff writers doing reviews. You need to apply to be a writer and they currently aren't taking applications. So if you start your own blog and get 20 people to write for you and have editorial input into what they write, you ~~are a RS~~ aren't self-published. The work of the author is published by someone else. It ain't self-published. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Posted question about the Daily Vault to the RS noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting approach to resolving this dispute. link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily Vault Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - check out the footnote to WP:SPS. Wikipedia:SPS#cite note-5. it states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.". the Daily Vault is little more than a group blog in this context. if i start a message board and invite my friends to moderate it and am no longer accepting invitations that does not mean i am all of a sudden a reliable source nor does it mean Daily Vault is. but hey - do feel free to read WP:RS and WP:V and quote me the portions of them that you feel make your case. that's what i'm doing. i quote wikipedia policy and you respond with speculation and hearsay. that's not helping your case - it's hurting it. read WP:RS and WP:V. and read WP:NONENG for intro.de. i can't comment on a site that's in a language i don't know Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, even if Daily Vault were a WP:RS, per WP:N, the coverage needs to be "significant". a review does not constitute "significant" coverage Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - For a band or book a review is generally considered quite significant. Do you have a reference for anything otherwise? Hobit (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        the word "review" does not occur in WP:MUSIC or WP:N. well, it occurs once in WP:N but more as in "this is the material - here's a cheat sheet for it you can review"-type context Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A brief discussion at WP:N talk would indicate that reviews are generally "significant". I'd say that brief response is less important than the fact that books, bands and movies tend to rely on reviews at AfDs and they are generally viewed as a source meeting WP:N in my experiance. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        i've posted my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reviews?. as might be expected i disagree with you. besides, Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source [[15]] looks reasonable. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well it does look better than Daily Vault, however, i'm still not convinced. User:Collectonian at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reviews? said, of reviews of bands, that they're acceptable "so long as they are not just from local sources" yet on your zeromag.com link Kaura is reviewed in a section entitled Local Music Spotlight. as such, it looks like the local sources qualification invalidates the link Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.