Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadstar Assembly (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadstar Assembly

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

This article was originally deleted in accordance with an AfD here. It was undeleted according to a deletion review here. I am relisting the article for deletion because it has not improved sufficiently. User:Michig has listed four possible sources for the article on its talk page, but these are insufficient to demonstrate that the group is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of the band seems to be sufficient to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Deadstar Assembly does not conform to any of the 12 criteria for the notability of musicians and ensembles, 11 of those uncontroversially so. It has no singles or albums on any country's national music chart, no albums certified gold or higher, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, no albums on a major label, and no independently notable musicians. It is not the most prominent representative of a notable style, it has not won or been nominated for a major music award, it has not won or placed in a major music competition, it has not performed music for a work of media that is notable, it has not been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and it has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The only remaining criterion is publication in multiple non-trivial works whose sources are independent from the musician or ensemble itself and are reliable, and Deadstar Assembly fails this criterion as well. The four sources provided by Michig do not fit the criteria. The MusicMight source is trivial as it consists entirely of two short paragraphs. The Allmusic source is even shorter, consisting of only one brief paragraph. I don't see what makes Altsounds a reliable source. The UGO source appears to be OK, but the criterion calls for multiple reliable non-trivial sources; one is not sufficient. Neelix (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @129 · 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has gone to some efforts to establish notability, but these are largely limited to non-notable/non-reputable sources and coverage seems limited to the strip club scene which is and of itself not notable Rotovia (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has apparently toured with notable bands, but that's not enough for WP:MUSIC, and those assertations aren't sourced anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 18 January 2010 (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.