Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XPQ-21

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 post-nomination improvements in sourcing done to the article by David Gerard have established that the subject passes at least one criteria of WP:NBAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XPQ-21[edit]

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

No indication of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off a tick please - I just saw this morning how terrible this was and have asked people I know for help with sources. They're actually pretty notable per band requirements, but if I didn't already know that myself I'd have PRODed this at the least - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been tagged since 2012 as lacking reliable references and has only had "references" to the band itself and the band's facebook. If we can't get reliable sources for a request in 2 years, what reasonable good faith should we extend that we'll see reliable sources in the next 7 days? This article has been around since 2004 in relatively the same state so this is very much a poster child for "Improving wikipedia by cutting away the chaff". Hasteur (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hasteur: Is your question here answered somewhat? - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Davig Gerard: If meeting notability is slaping a bunch of discogs links into a artist's page then I weep for the vast hordes of pittifully sourced pages that are in namespace. You should know better! Discogs only provides data dumps of existance, not notability. Facebook pages are never reliable sources. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when I wrote it (pretty much as-is), it was early days and we had a lot of articles about this good ... I'd forgotten I was actually the one to write it. I've dredged up sources and will be getting to work on the text later - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Four albums, three of which were on third-party labels. Could reasonably add the Jeyenne solo discography as well. Any better? More to come - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David -- could you identify which of those articles you believe are written in RSs? And which of those labels are notable labels?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side-Line's a proper music magazine - note print cite. I'm pretty sure the labels qualify as indies with more than one band that would pass NBAND, I'll dredge through in due course - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorverlag I need to investigate as to whether it passes to fully trustworthy RS standard. Brutal Resonance stands a chance too. They looked reasonable for the level of sourcing I'm using them for here - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also asked on the XPQ-21 Facebook, noting precisely the sort of thing we'd need in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- David, this looks considerably better (and would certainly survive CSD A7 now). However, we need publication info regarding Terrorverlag (date, link if online, etc.) rather than the direct quote and name of the publication only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Terrorverlag is already in the references list - look above that one. There's probably a better way to do that - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  What about Terrorverlag as a named reference, and the original German as a footnote using {{efn}}? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  There's probably a better way 's true. I don't know my way around the reference footnote templates, feel free - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creator note: Passes WP:NBAND - 1. Substantial coverage in proper third-party music press. 2. Three songs in Deutsche Alternative Charts. (Yes, the DAC is named in English.) 5. Their labels also have other DAC-charting bands to their credit. Collecting sources for 4. (they tour incessantly) - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on all the new sources added in the last few days, and the fact that multiple songs have charted. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:33, 17 April 2014 (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.