Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motormark

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motormark[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please explain what efforts you made to find sources, what you found, and why you believe the subject fails WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looks possibly a borderline case, but a web search found coverage from Allmusic, PopMatters, Glasswerk, the NME, and Fife Today. --Michig (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC) There's further coverage (generally fairly brief, but citeable) on Highbeam: The Mirror, Scotland on Sunday, Daily Record, Daily Record, Daily Record. --Michig (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As noted on the article talk page, I searched the internet, employing a variety of search terms to find anything that would establish their notability, not just their existence. You have found some mentions that I did but you have come up with others that I did not, so thanks. Nonetheless, I'd need some convincing that the these bring the case up to the borderline, or past it.

There are 12 criteria given in WP:BAND and I can't see anything in the sources listed that in any way address criteria 2 to 12. That would leave any discussion to the satisfaction of criterion 1. Would you agree?

If so, regarding criterion 1, most of the sources you note are “reliable, not self-published… independent of the.. ensemble”, leaving the question as to whether the mentions are “non-trivial”. Some of these sources require a subscription, so there may be pertinent content I have missed but they appear to be variously: side mentions in articles about the singer’s parents’ notable outfit (The Singing Kettle), an article noting the article subject’s emergence but based on the connection to the latter notable outfit, mentions as support in gig reviews of notable outfits, a short bio in the local paper in a series of the same regarding 100 local bands, a review on the website of a promoter, a two-sentence dismissal in NME, a longer and less outright dismissal in Pop Matters and an entry in Allmusic. As Allmusic does seem to list, as the name suggests, pretty much all pop and rock music at least, I’m uncertain that an entry there establishes notability. It's pretty slim? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Allmusic doesn't cover every artist, is an accepted reliable source, and there's an album review there, not just an entry. Unfavourable reviews count no less towards notability than favourable reviews, it's the fact that the artist is receiving the reviews that is an indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough participants for a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough coverage has been identified above for WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2018 (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.