Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick to Your Guns

Add links
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 keep. The argument raised by User:Moonriddengirl is apt -- Samir 06:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to Your Guns

[edit]
Stick to Your Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

not notable; promotional/advertisment Gmatsuda (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Agree with Trusilver. Allmusic.com is not a reliable source. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:: Allmusic is widely accepted as a reliable source. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I can accept that blogs or myspace pages don't confirm notability, but allmusic.com, or any other established music website should be good enough. Strummer25 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trusilver. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trusilver's argument is wrong. Please read WP:BAND: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable I've added 2 reviews, one from allmusic, one from metalreview. The sources are reliable. Criterion 1 is fulfilled, therefore the band is notable. Strummer25 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: With a staff of professional writers, Allmusic meets WP:RS quite handily, which is why they are so widely mirrored in other industry websites like billboard.com. But notability requires multiple sources; Allmusic is slightly watered down in that regard because of their willingness to receive and review any commercially available cd. (See their submission guideline.) They aren't selective. Metal Review looks like a really well done fansite. I don't see any sign that the staff is professional or that there's editorial control. WP:N, which is the parent guideline of WP:MUSIC, notes that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." I'd consider metalreview.com a dubious source, which would mean more numbers would be helpful. Are there newspaper articles or magazine coverage that you know of? The band's name is unfortunately a common phrase, so I've come up with a ton of false hits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: Just added 6 more reviews of their album as references. Strummer25 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, let's look at those. :) [1] is a WP:SPS, so they won't serve. They accept reviews from anyone. I've removed them accordingly. Antenna looks promising, given the self-professed credentials of the editor-in-chief, though I'm not familiar with the publication. Asice is not selective: "we will try to give our honest opinion on everything that comes in. Just send it to the contact address and we'll put it on the list." Blistering.com is a questionable source because it's promotional, selling product. The others look to be the same sort of thing as Metal Review--well done fansites. So we've got allmusic (marginally usable; reliable, but nonselective) and Antenna (giving it the benefit of the doubt) on the reliable, though perhaps not stellar for demonstrating WP:N, side. More dubious, but potentially helpful in aggregate (imho): metalband, punkbands and machinegun.funk. Not helpful: blistering.com and asice. At this point, I'm personally leaning towards weak keep, but before making up my own mind, I'd hope to see some feedback from individuals who might be more personally familiar with Antenna or the other publications. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←*Keep. I'm not sure about some of the references, but of the latest batch I find AP convincing, as the review seems to have been submitted by an editor. With the bulk of other sources, even if some are dubious, I think notability threshold is met. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stick_to_Your_Guns&oldid=1141948325"