Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit Spine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spirit Spine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable musical artist. Speedy contested bye editor whose first and only edits were to remove the CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- not arguing, but can you point out what exactly passes WP:MUSIC Ridernyc (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the article topic would be me paraphrasing. See point 1 of WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see are blogs none which I would not consider a reliable source. I also can find no reliable sources on Google. Also checking last.fm I see total of 68 plays over the last 6 months for this artist who has no description. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the Tripwire ones are certainly reliable - blogs, yes, but blogs published at a reputable website. Sort of like an opinion piece in the NYT is reliable because it's published in the NYT, while it wouldn't be considered an RS on say, blogspot. I'd say fork/knife probably counts as reputable, even though it is a blogspot site - taking a look at the bands they've interviewed they must have some pull. BTR, imo, also probably passes. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see are blogs none which I would not consider a reliable source. I also can find no reliable sources on Google. Also checking last.fm I see total of 68 plays over the last 6 months for this artist who has no description. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the article topic would be me paraphrasing. See point 1 of WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Not yet notable. A few online mentions isn't enough to establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. لennavecia 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numerous blog mentions imply notability within the indie rock community. Djd1219 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source I could find that *might* be considered reliable is this and that is not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. The primary sources I find are blogs, and the only coverage in reliable sources really isn't "substantial". Per ThaddeusB. Jamie☆S93 22:22, 8 June 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.