Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junkyard Lipstick

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The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement and promobumf tonedown. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyard Lipstick[edit]

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

Band with no strong evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC; while the article appears thoroughly sourced on the surface, careful examination reveals that the sources are almost exclusively primary (Bandcamp, Facebook, etc.) or unreliable (Blogspot, Wordpress, etc.) in nature, with barely a shred of proper coverage in real media sources in sight. Nor is there a particularly strong claim of actual notability to be found here, either — at best they're approaching the rural outskirts of criterion #4 (touring), but even that's sourced to a blog post. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the creator was User:Junkyard Lipstick — while of course a WP:COI isn't a reason to delete in and of itself, it does confirm that the intent here was advertorial rather than encyclopedic. Delete, unless somebody can salvage it with better sourcing and a stronger notability claim than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with many comments above about unreliable sources, but there were enough powerful sources in there, that the group meets the general notability guideline with multiple, independent coverage in depth. I revamped the article to remove the junk, trimmed out unsourced material, cut out great-looking but overly informational charts (apologies) on the basis of WP:UNDUE, added categories. Look at the coverage in Rolling Stone, and album review and another review and an interview in Rolling Stone. My sense is they're an up-and-coming South African band, winning a following, but they are not so great to earn a multi-page promotional spread (so-and-so was the guitarist in this month, etc, or a listing of every single they've ever recorded -- save that for the web site, thank you) in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 12 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.