Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost of Lester Bangs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (aeropagitica) 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost of Lester Bangs[edit]
Contested A7 speedy. Band vanity about a group with a couple of self-produced releases. A Google search[1] finds a MySpace page, a number of bulletin board/web forum entries, and a mention in an article about another band, but nothing resembling a reliable source. No indication in the article that the group meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Allen3 talk 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. notability not demonstrated, no sources, likely vanity Anlace 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delte per above Hello32020 20:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to A7 this, too. Delete, then. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete This is for a band from my area, but no, I am not personally promoting or benefiting from this at all. I just saw other local bands the same size with entries and thought they deserved one too. Bands like ASOB have a listing, but they are no bigger. I think it is fair to leave this listing and I believe others will update this listing to make it more complete and have the most possible amount of information. These are just the facts I know about the band and have read on websites, reviews and their own site (which seems to be down at the moment).User:WSeconds12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary issue is not where the band is from nor your motivation for writing the article. Instead the primary issue is the availability of reliable sources to provide a neutral and verifiable article without resorting to original research. If you can provide the needed sources then the article may be saved. Conversely, if you are aware of other articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion of material please help us by either making needed improvements or, when minimum requirements can not be met, nominating them for deletion. --Allen3 talk 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else can be done? I have updated the entry a bit to show the only things that come directly from the band. The other stuff, (musicbrainz is a massive discography of distributed popular music and a review featuring seemingly pretty accurate information about the band) is verified without the band and most likely with the band saying it is accurate by not telling these sites to edit the information. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.[User:WSeconds]17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there does not appear to be much else that can be done. The links you added to the article point to sites that appear to be open bulletin boards (MusicBrainz) or personal webpages/blogs (the band's home page and WRANKmusic which uses MySpace for contact information) under Wikipedia'a policies and guidelines. What the article really needs is newspaper articles or stories in the music press to establish notability. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to put someone on the spot, but what does a page like this use for sources (because the sources are not listed). I'll look in further about articles to see what I can find, because I know they have been in various publications.WSeconds 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like that was one that got past the New page patrol. As a check on the article subject could only find a self-produced CD, appropriate processing has been started. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to put someone on the spot, but what does a page like this use for sources (because the sources are not listed). I'll look in further about articles to see what I can find, because I know they have been in various publications.WSeconds 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately there does not appear to be much else that can be done. The links you added to the article point to sites that appear to be open bulletin boards (MusicBrainz) or personal webpages/blogs (the band's home page and WRANKmusic which uses MySpace for contact information) under Wikipedia'a policies and guidelines. What the article really needs is newspaper articles or stories in the music press to establish notability. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else can be done? I have updated the entry a bit to show the only things that come directly from the band. The other stuff, (musicbrainz is a massive discography of distributed popular music and a review featuring seemingly pretty accurate information about the band) is verified without the band and most likely with the band saying it is accurate by not telling these sites to edit the information. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.[User:WSeconds]17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The primary issue is not where the band is from nor your motivation for writing the article. Instead the primary issue is the availability of reliable sources to provide a neutral and verifiable article without resorting to original research. If you can provide the needed sources then the article may be saved. Conversely, if you are aware of other articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion of material please help us by either making needed improvements or, when minimum requirements can not be met, nominating them for deletion. --Allen3 talk 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this indulgence. Wryspy 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To say the article does not mention notability per WP:MUSIC is false. There seems to be some misunderstanding here about WP:MUSIC. From the list provided, a band need only meet one of the requirements, and a national tour of the US seems to certainly meet that qualification. Here's a list of California shows from 2004, they're listed under the 25th playing in California. How notable the sources need to be is not clear, and highly debated. And they're from New York, as well as other web mentions of a prior Midwest tour. It also seems unfair to use the fact that their albums are self-released against them, but if the 2 albums were the only claim to notability I would have to acquiesce and vote no. However, for any band in to have demonstrably played in at least three time zones of the US, much less the four demonstrated here, that is, under the GUIDELINES LAID OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH AT WP:MUSIC, notableGuyanakoolaid 08:35, 24 September 2006 (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.