Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia's Dad

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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia's Dad[edit]

Non-notable band. There is a thank you note from the band to the editor who created the article. That creates the appearance that this is a form of advertising. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few references are listed, but they are obscure and offline, and under the circumstances I do not believe they establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination Primary subject of three substantial published profiles, including a 900 word biography in Allmusic, a profile in Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and a profile in Folk & Blues. Internationally touring band [1], released seven albums both domestically and abroad, 1 1/2 of them recorded with Steve Albini, two notable members in Tim Eriksen and Laura Risk, multiple album reviews in domestic and international press. Meets WP:BAND on multiple grounds. The provided sourcing is fully sufficient, "offline" sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:RS. And if the "obscure and offline" sources and Allmusic aren't enough, how about Time Magazine? In case you missed it, the comment on my user page is a comment about Wikipedia, not about the band. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you accuse another admin of a bad faith nomination? Multiple instances today of you appearing to misunderstand the process of AfD, per the AN thread started by Uncle G. Please rewrite your comment above into an actual keep argument. ^Avruchtalk 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because, per your own argument, this has nothing to do with the notability of the band but with the discussion at WP:MALLSECURITY. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band, one of the references given by Trialsanderrors above link to trivial coverage of the band - the Time magazine article quotes a band member and identifies the band, but says not one single other thing about it. ^Avruchtalk 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Allmusic profile trivial? Don't embarass yourself. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not embarassed. ^Avruchtalk 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the offline references - given that you cite the Times article, which has only the most peripheral mention of the band, can you quote sections of these sources that demonstrate they actually discuss the subject in a non-trivial way? If so, I'll switch my vote to keep. ^Avruchtalk 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of them because they're a local band in my area, but I'm not finding enough references, here or elsewhere, to convince me of their notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three full-length profiles listed in the references, plus a variety of reviews. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references, plus they are featured in the standard specialist guides (Colin Larkin, Guinness guide). Catchpole (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references. Here are a few more. Village Voice review. Prairie Home Companion (trivial)]. Sing Out! brief. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody would volunteer to add them to the article? Right now it looks like any old Myspace band. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace bands don't get their albums produced by Steve Albini, nor do they get their albums released for the German market by one of the two major German alt-country labels, Normal Records. They also don't have their frontmen being asked to work as musical consultants to the soundtrack of Cold Mountain, get their albums reviewed in international music magazines or have a 900 word biography in Allmusic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all wonderful. Add references to the article and then it will not be deleted. This is easy to resolve. Do you use Firefox? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced to the tune of 4,000 words, in case you didn't look. Do you have anything to add in your defense that this is not a WP:POINT nomination, or can we close this as purely frivolous? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming bad faith, and I have nothing to defend whatsoever. Everyone will have a chance to express their opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to assume it. It#S right there in your nomination. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sources found are too trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources are given. They appear sufficiently non-trivial to me. Can any of those proposing deletion explain further why they feel the sources are too trivial? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allways hard to assess this pop-groups, but this one seems to be more than passing the usual demands for publicity/longevity/albums etc. A bit weak on online sourcing, but I will give them a bit for having broken up in 1998. Greswik (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, Factiva is an online news aggregator. It's just behind a paywall. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This was an important alt-country band. WP:NMG is clearly satisfied. GreenGourd (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sourses Addhoc (talk) 20:59, 30 January 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.