Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loudflower

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loudflower

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

Does not meet WP:BAND although they almost meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loudflower released or was included in three releases from significant independent label grey dot records (now reflected with a Discography section), included a member who would later join notable band Drivin N Cryin, and was also part of a lawsuit in which the band sued its record label, forming a separate corporation in order to do so. It is questionable whether the article meets WP:BAND under criterion 5, but the sum total of the article certainly meets WP:GNG. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that being included on compilation recordings counted toward notability and that blogs were RSes that counted toward notability. How foolish of me. What we have for sources is a RS review, a press release from the band's label, a blog, and the result of a legal settlement. Only the first counts. That's why I nominated them. Please read the guidelines again since they don't meet GNG or BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm aside, you bring up valid points, which I am more than happy to address. First, I was not including the compilation towards criterion 5 of BAND, and I had already acknowledged that whether the full album and EP together qualified as notable was questionable. Second, I find it unusual that you wouldn't consider the results of legal proceedings to be a RS; I would think court records are reasonably reliable. Finally, I agree that the article needs more references, and I have a list of several that I am currently tracking down. (two from 7ball, one from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one from HM, and an entry in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music), but unfortunately none of them have online editions from the late 1990s, so I'm having to find print copies to cite. Would the inclusion of those RSes meet your standards? - Brother Bulldog (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many lawsuits and their existence is not confirmation of notability. If the issue is that the suit existed, the settlement would suffice. To confirm notability, not so much.

Feature articles in the music magazines would count toward notability. Reviews wouldn't. Feature articles from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution would be great, but fluff pieces that discuss the band's upcoming tours or a recent performance at a local club wouldn't. Non-trivial coverage is the key here.

The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (Powell) has a half-column entry on the band. Just after the two-and-a-half page entry on the Lost Dogs, and just before the three-quarter-column entry on Love Coma and one-column entry on Darlene Love. Not all entries in that tome are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. For instance, over the next few pages we see the same size entries for Lovewar, Luit-Kriss, [[:Claire Lynch], and Windy Lyre. Non-trivial coverage is the key here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I notice you also nominated Love Coma for deletion, on very similar grounds, and that article was retained due to no consensus. I will step out of this conversation, and simply state that, if an article could arguably be notable, I would prefer to see Wikipedia err on the side of caution regarding deletions. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I've also !voted delete (and lost) on similar bands before, but WP:OSE has never been an argument that sits well with me, so I'm back. All the coverage I can find in WP:RSes is WP:ROUTINE, and any non-routine coverage I can find is not in a RS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2013 (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.