Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menage a Twang[edit]

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

blatantly fails WP:BAND. one source in the article is its own website, other sources merely verify info and are not indepth coverage. gnews doesn't show extensive indepth coverage, merely listings. [1]. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Daily News article is indeed in-depth, as are most of the other articles. Tduk (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "one source in the article is its own website"--there's nothing wrong with that, its quite common, that source just doesn't count for notability. The NY Daily News article is a dedicated article on the band in a major U.S. Newspaper, so the rest of the nominating statment does not make sense either.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no extensive indepth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess you acknowledge that your nominating statement is wrong, which says that the "other sources merely verify info and are not indepth coverage," as the Daily News article by itself disproves that statement. You can't just come up with new rationales when the nominating rationale so easily proves wrong, because I can't assume now that there is no other coverage. Indeed I alread added another source[2] from across the country from New York.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one or two articles do not qualify as significant extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad nomination, Lib. This existing source in the article [3] is also clearly in depth. I know that's from a high school publication, though its one of the only notable high school papers in the country. Who knows what else you have missed?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you assume good faith and not accuse others of bad nominations. let the AfD run. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith at all. Its just a bad nomination-nobody's perfect. The nominating statement is completely wrong.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the sourcing and text and added a number of additional sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not completely wrong, that is your interpretation. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly - It's a bit thin, but the NY Daily News and the New Yorker eke it out. The album cover is going to have to go though, that's a definite no-go per WP:NFCC. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the album cover? I confess I don't know the exact parameters here, but if there was a page on the album itself, I know it would be fine, and since the album is covered within the article on the artist, I assumed that would be OK. If I need to do something else, anyone can chime in and let me know.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used just to identify the band members in the band page, is the thing. If there were an article on the album, or an entire sub-section of this article devoted to the album (like how Last Action Hero is setup), then it'd be fine for that infobox. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—there is just enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. "Significant" coverage is debatable for several of the sources, but no fewer than three offer exclusive articles. A google search turns up additional articles and so forth. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you please indicate these additional articles which would count as WP:RS? LibStar (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these seem reasonable when considered as a whole: [4], [5], [6], [7], various blogs, a popular youtube video, various listings, and so forth. My judgment says there is enough to warrant some sort of inclusion, mainly given those articles. It's borderline, but I usually lean toward keep on these situations. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:38, 6 November 2010 (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.