Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Rider

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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rider[edit]

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

Two sentence band article. No assertion of notability, no independent sources other than music reviews. Pro-forma notice of existence is not evidence of notability, and 'it exists' does not justify a Wikipedia article. Google search shows no signifigant coverage. Revent (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The article already contains links to independent reviews of this artist's work in reliable sources ([1], [2], [3]) which show that the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC are met. — sparklism ^hey! 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but can somebody write something about them?) Also coverage in MusicOMH[4], Drowned in Sound[5], The Quietus[6], Record Collector[7], AllMusic[8], Chicago Reader[9]. This coverage satisfies WP:BAND and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Music reviews are merely pro-forma notice that something exists, and not significant coverage. You'll note that WP:NMUSIC does not say 'Has been widely reviewed'. Specifically, a review is coverage of a particular album, and generally trivial. It is not coverage of the band itself, and doesn't show that they are notable. It is somewhat silly to suggest that Wikipedia cover every band that has ever received a music review. I'm not saying that a better article about the band could or should not exist at some date, but at this point there seem to be no sources about them on which to base an article. Revent (talk) 21:44, 19 June 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.