Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catharsis (American band)

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (American band)[edit]

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

This band currently has zero secondary source coverage (needs significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources (?)) nevertheless enough coverage to build an article that does justice to the topic. No suitable merge/redirect targets: not mentioned at CrimethInc. nor are there sources to warrant doing so. Previously deleted in 2007, hence the AfD instead of a PROD. czar 15:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a bold statement to claim that the band has zero secondary source coverage, as it isn't something that is really possible to prove. There is some coverage out there ([1], [2], [3]). It should be noted that there appears to be another American band with the same name ([4]). I suppose notability here may come down to whether releases on CrimethInc satisfy WP:BAND criterion 5, i.e. is it "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)"? --Michig (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? I don't see how CrimethInc. would possibly satisfy that criterion. As for the sources, yes, the IndyWeek review is a find, but would we base an entire article on one alt weekly review? The other two mentions don't add much substance. czar 18:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other bands on the label, I don't think you could really make a case for it being a sufficiently important label for a pass of criterion 5 of WP:BAND. On the coverage identified so far I agree there's not enough to support an article. It's possible that someone can dig up more though, given that a lot of their releases are from an era where coverage may not be found online. If nobody does, it's a delete for me. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 24 March 2018 (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.