Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunk injuns
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 KEEP. Herostratus 04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drunk injuns
No sourcing to demonstarte notability or compliance with WP:V so Delete. Bridgeplayer 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - completely non-notable and possibly vanity page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)- keep - Satisfies point 4 of WP:MUSIC's secondary criteria, as their records have now been re-released by Alternative Tentacles, which is definitely one of the most notable independent labels. I'm sure if an editor here had a stack of mid-80's punk magazines, he would find they received feature press in their time, but you cannot be sure you can divine their actual notability at the time by looking on the net for articles from relevant (80's) press. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: As bad as the article is, there seem to be a lot of sources available. We have an article here, a big mention in an article on 'skate rock' here, a small article here, a short review, citing concretedisciples.com here, and many more pages of Google hits to go. Drop me a line if you are not convinced this is enough. J Milburn 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment I'd personally accept an Ink Nineteen interview as press coverage, though I don't speak for anyone else; but what was there was simply an article about Alternative Tentacles re-releasing their earlier records. In indie rock terms, a record review (of a re-release) in a minor pub like that would probably be considered "trivial" here - it's terribly easy to get that kind of press. As for WP:MUSIC's secondary criteria, I guess they may count under point 4 (release of several records on a notable independent label), but nowhere else, and it looks like re-releases only, and I guess the secondary criterion only are there to identify bands who may therefore have had non-trivial press coverage. If you can find feature-sized interviews in the major indie press (not zines or websites but people who have to sell ads to survive), that would certainly count for a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Right, before I start saying this, please understand that I hadn't heard of the band before I came across this debate, and I am not into this kinda music, so I really don't read those kind of magazines. In defense of the Ink19 page- it wasn't a reprinted press release; as far as I can see, it was written by Stein Haukland, who appears to work there. Whether it is easy to get or not puts them well ahead of many band articles that we get submitted every hour, (as a new page patroller, I can voich for that) and, as far as I can see, it does meet all the requirements for one of the multiple, independent, reliable, non trivial sources required. It is independent of the band (and not a reprinted press release) it is from a good source, and the whole article is about the band, it isn't just some mention. This article interest me a lot. It gives the impression that they are VERY important in the skate rock/skate punk scenes, and, they are linked to from the skate punk article, but as Drunk Injuns, which is the correct title, not Drunk injuns. (This leads me on to another point- this needs to be capitalised, I'll do that when I have finished writing this.) I admit that the In Music We Trust article is COMPLETELY useless, it doesn't even mention Drunk Injuns, except in the title. The final article looks reliable to me, but it confuses me the way that it cites another website. In any case, I have now realised that this band is an older one, perhaps even not in operation any more, making sources hard to come by, and making Internet sources even more valuable proof of notability. Well, that's what I reckon, anyway. I'm standing by my keep vote. J Milburn 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment - as you say, a review in Ink19 puts this article ahead of most. (However, trust me, it's easy to get a record review in the second tier - I've had a couple, and my music won't satisfy WP:N.) Sure, you could argue they may have gotten a feature 20 years ago in Maximum R&R and we won't find it on the internet. I'm essentially on the fence with this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Right, before I start saying this, please understand that I hadn't heard of the band before I came across this debate, and I am not into this kinda music, so I really don't read those kind of magazines. In defense of the Ink19 page- it wasn't a reprinted press release; as far as I can see, it was written by Stein Haukland, who appears to work there. Whether it is easy to get or not puts them well ahead of many band articles that we get submitted every hour, (as a new page patroller, I can voich for that) and, as far as I can see, it does meet all the requirements for one of the multiple, independent, reliable, non trivial sources required. It is independent of the band (and not a reprinted press release) it is from a good source, and the whole article is about the band, it isn't just some mention. This article interest me a lot. It gives the impression that they are VERY important in the skate rock/skate punk scenes, and, they are linked to from the skate punk article, but as Drunk Injuns, which is the correct title, not Drunk injuns. (This leads me on to another point- this needs to be capitalised, I'll do that when I have finished writing this.) I admit that the In Music We Trust article is COMPLETELY useless, it doesn't even mention Drunk Injuns, except in the title. The final article looks reliable to me, but it confuses me the way that it cites another website. In any case, I have now realised that this band is an older one, perhaps even not in operation any more, making sources hard to come by, and making Internet sources even more valuable proof of notability. Well, that's what I reckon, anyway. I'm standing by my keep vote. J Milburn 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment I'd personally accept an Ink Nineteen interview as press coverage, though I don't speak for anyone else; but what was there was simply an article about Alternative Tentacles re-releasing their earlier records. In indie rock terms, a record review (of a re-release) in a minor pub like that would probably be considered "trivial" here - it's terribly easy to get that kind of press. As for WP:MUSIC's secondary criteria, I guess they may count under point 4 (release of several records on a notable independent label), but nowhere else, and it looks like re-releases only, and I guess the secondary criterion only are there to identify bands who may therefore have had non-trivial press coverage. If you can find feature-sized interviews in the major indie press (not zines or websites but people who have to sell ads to survive), that would certainly count for a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
