Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansing-Dreiden

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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lansing-Dreiden

Lansing-Dreiden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)}}

• Delete- Non-notable collective of artists. ---Iconoclast Horizon 04:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- This is also a part of a list of artists with all questionable bios listed for Rivington Arms art gallery in New York. This appears to all be promotionally connected. I have tagged the gallery and all the bios (save one) AfD. ---Iconoclast Horizon 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and don't forget to get their albums too. Non-notable, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems to be marginally notable through coverage in a couple of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am also listing their albums:

The Incomplete Triangle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A Sectioned Beam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Dividing Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be part of a walled garden involving Kemado Records artists. Someone might wanna check that out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The external Kemado Records site basically mirrors the list that is on wiki or I should say vice-versa. Multiple bands that are not notable. Just because they burn CD's and post them online doesn't make all of the groups or the label notable.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what is wrong with this AfD, but see here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I before E. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Duh...Thanks. Should it be deleted? I've redirected it for now, because I don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep. Numerous Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News Archive results. It's a top bug-tracking package and even has an entire book written about setting it up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) OK, that was weird.

• Keep. They practice deliberate obscurity, which doesn't help, but they have reviews in all the major music publications (Rolling Stone, Spin, Pitchfork) and the non-music stuff is written about in places like the NYT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Lots of G-Hits. The article itself needs souring and references, however I see a couple of google results which would make this band acceptable per criterion #1 here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Google hits are so useless, please don't bring them up. I think they've received enough press coverage to be notable, here is an NYT review for anyone who's too lazy to search for it.[1] P4k (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Given the fact that Google searches are used to aid in searching for reliable sources to help verify notability, I'd have to disagree when you say they are "useless". - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of subjects will return tons of Google hits, but that doesn't mean any of them will be reliable sources. Generally they'll all be forum posts and bullshit like that. Google hits don't mean anything, mentioning them just wastes people's time. Here.P4k (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not saying that Google is useless, just that mentioning the number of Google hits something gets in an AfD discussion generally is.P4k (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I wouldn't have mentioned the Google search if the results were irrelevant. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm glad you found my comments interesting. Happy AfD voting!P4k (talk) 06:52, 28 November 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.