Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Cooper & The Stampede

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cooper & The Stampede

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references are either to interviews or mere passing mentions, seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC, a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as AfC reviewer, who reviewed this new article within the last few hours. I'll confess that I'm relatively new at AfC although I've been around for many years and have fair record in deletion processes. IMHO the nominator doesn't do these sources justice. I believe this subject meets GNG and section one of WP:BAND. Citation #1 is in fact a YouTube interview with a staffer conducted by and published by the Marquette University student newspaper (Oct 2017). The source has been used to document the band's existence and the names of the band members only. #2 is nothing special, a review of a single song by nobody meeting RS. #3 is a one paragraph review of a single song by NPR radio, All Songs Considered, a national source directly detailing the subject, not merely a mention (March 2017). #4 is a feature article about the band's upcoming performance from the Baltimore Sun, a major market media outlet. While the moderately long article does contain some quotes, the story is mostly a "local girl makes it big and comes back home" piece, and again, directly details the subject at length (Aug 2015). #5 is a longer "get to know the band" piece from ANCHR magazine, which does include some quotes but directly details the subject at some length, a Chicagoland-based online professional music publication though I'd never heard of them myself (Oct 2017). #6 is Nashville Scene, another professional website which is covering a music fest, somewhat routine music news but directly details for an entire paragraph (July 2017). So we have zero mere mentions, we have ~~zero~~ one articles which ~~are~~ is purely interviews. What we do have is several independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject which originate from six different parts of the country. NPR and Baltimore Sun put this past WP:BAND, ANCHR provides lots of detail, the rest of the sources aren't as strong but verify this band is doing well in a wide variety of settings. A reasonable before might have found a bit more than a bare mention at Seven Days Vermont, a long paragraph from connected BMI, and another long profile with quotes from Native Magazine. This isn't that close. I passed the article through the reviewing process based on NPR, ANCHR and the Sun and the sheer diversity of source locations. I stand by my review accepting this brand new pagespace for inclusion in an online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Page creator has incorporated Native Magazine source. BusterD (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage not really sufficient to establish notability. May become notable soon, but if they split up now and never did anything else they wouldn't really merit an article. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2018 (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.