Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lourds

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, the keep arguments do not indicate how this article seems to meet WP:MUSIC. It is clear that this article does not meet the primary It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable criterion for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lourds

Nonnotable band; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —An gr 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but rename Article purports to be about the lead singer, yet the main body of the article is about "LOURDES" the band (their caps) The band could just qualify for notability due to their touring multiple states, albeit the source is their website [1] Would suggest an article on the band is appropriate, but one on the lead singer would not yet deserve own article. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The correct name of the band appears to be LOURDS (no e) and I found reviews [2][3][4], and I'm not sure how I feel about defining those as 'nontrivial.' Article should be about the band, not the person, if kept.-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP The article is indeed about the band "LOURDS" fronted by Lourds Lane. More information can and should be added in about the band in its entirety. The band has toured extensively throughout America, has been the subject of articles in national publications (Billboard, for example) They have received national airplay on the Fuse cable music network as well as the national series "City Sounds". The band "LOURDS" is also chronicled in the forthcoming documentary entitled "Always". Worthy of an entry, though article needs to be fleshed out a bit.Griff 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely KEEP - I am the webmaster of the LOURDS official website [5] and the LOURDS MySpace website [6]. I will work with the leader of the band, Lourds Lane, to address the above issues, expand the content about the band, LOURDS, and create a separate page for the musician and lead singer, Lourds Lane. Bkoopers 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bkoopers has contributed only to the article in question. —An gr 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like a notable band and should be kept, even if it is a small band. mrholybrain 's talk 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: violates WP:MUSIC. Causesobad → (Talk) 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zomg the webmaster of their MYSPACE is the article editor. I think such high authority is proof of their notability. (or lack thereof). Fails WP:COI, among other things. Nardman1 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appear to be a non-notable band. TJ Spyke 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources cited are primary and/or trivial. Fails the primary notability guideline without that, WP:MUSIC or no. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTLEY KEEP The article might not yet do the band justice, but the band is indeed noteworthy. The debate should be about the band itself and not about who is editing their page. There is an absoloute need to flesh out the article as soon as possible. None of the detractors have shown any compelling reason to support deletion, while those in support of keeping the entry have provided legitimate reasons for the page remaining. I reiterate that the entry needs to be expanded as soon as possible to feature the entire band and not just the lead singer Lourds Lane. Slurponyou 12:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is User:Slurponyou's first contribution to Wikipedia. —An gr 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not here to debate how many contributions I have made, but the band Lourds. Lets stay on topic, shall we.Slurponyou 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the fact that you have only made one contribution means you may be a sock puppet of another user. I'm not saying that you actually are, but there have been cases of people trying to create a false consensus in a discussion through the use of sock puppets.--Aervanath 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not Slurponyou is a sockpuppet isn't the point. "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." (emphasis added). Someone who shows up just to "vote" in an AFD isn't a Wikipedian and isn't part of the Wikipedia community. —An gr 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable band. A simple google search found articles in the New York Daily News, Billboard magazine, National TV programs and more. This would hardly justify deletion. As many above have stated, more information is needed about the entire band and not just Miss Lane. Exploring Uranus 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is User:Exploring Uranus's first contribution to Wikipedia. —An gr 07:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline, but seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, not very notable, but the reviews cited above do meet the minimum criteria.--Aervanath 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article definitely fails WP:NOTABILITY.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keepmeets WP:MUSIC, albeit by a hair's breadth, by reviews cited. However, webmaster should refrain from editing, and if no one else starts contributing to it, it should be deleted.Samael775 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources and external links (well, except for links that they own) lead me to believe that this article does not satisfy WP:Notability or WP:Music. Is having a song that's played on ESPN/ABC (which are exactly the same in sports really - if you watch abc and there's a game showing you'll see ESPN in the bottom left/right) really enought for notability. I mean can you imagine seeing these guys in something link Britannica (I know we aren't Britannica, but still ... notability)Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of substantive independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI issues not withstanding, this article must be sourced from information outside of the bands myspace. I would probably change my votes if links were provided to show evidence of reviews in major music magazines, not local newspapers. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One release from a small lable does not notability make. If there is independent press coverage, it should be added to the article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the band seems, as we say, on the cusp of notability, but isn't there yet. There will be no problem creating this article sometime later this year or next when WP:MUSIC is indisputably met. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only just meeting WP:music is still meeting it. Jcuk 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources. non-notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Borderline, but still meets WP:MUSIC nonetheless. RFerreira 07:51, 16 February 2007 (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.