This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Based on the references that exist as I write this, I think notability is iffy. Whether this band meets WP:GNG (and therefore WP:MUSIC criteria 1) or not depends largely on whether the presence of the sources that do show significant coverage implies notability (the band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria in WP:MUSIC at this time).
Here are the sources:
My concerns are:
While there are no applicable "hard line" rules that say "if your local paper covers you, that doesn't count" or "blogs are automatically irrelevant to notability" the fact that a source is local or is a blog is a consideration in my mind and I expect many other editor's minds when evaluating notability.
Given the above I am restoring the "notability" template and inviting discussion. I will list this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Notability question - Main Attrakionz shortly.
The whole discussion can hopefully be rendered moot by using sources that show significant coverage in contexts where the independence, reliability, and non-promotional nature of the sources are without question. It can also be rendered moot if the band's success improves and it meets one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC other than criteria 1 (criteria 1 being basically a re-statement of WP:GNG). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The notability template has been added (by me) and removed (by non-logged-in editor(s)) twice in rapid succession. As stated in Template:Notability#Removing this tag,
"If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
I have not decided if I am going to restore the tag immediately or wait for further discussion, but if it is restored either by me or another editor, it should not be removed until it is clear that the notability issues are resolved. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Based on the references that exist as I write this, I think notability is iffy. Whether this band meets WP:GNG (and therefore WP:MUSIC criteria 1) or not depends largely on whether the presence of the sources that do show significant coverage implies notability (the band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria in WP:MUSIC at this time).
Here are the sources:
My concerns are:
While there are no applicable "hard line" rules that say "if your local paper covers you, that doesn't count" or "blogs are automatically irrelevant to notability" the fact that a source is local or is a blog is a consideration in my mind and I expect many other editor's minds when evaluating notability.
Given the above I am restoring the "notability" template and inviting discussion. I will list this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Notability question - Main Attrakionz shortly.
The whole discussion can hopefully be rendered moot by using sources that show significant coverage in contexts where the independence, reliability, and non-promotional nature of the sources are without question. It can also be rendered moot if the band's success improves and it meets one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC other than criteria 1 (criteria 1 being basically a re-statement of WP:GNG). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The notability template has been added (by me) and removed (by non-logged-in editor(s)) twice in rapid succession. As stated in Template:Notability#Removing this tag,
"If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
I have not decided if I am going to restore the tag immediately or wait for further discussion, but if it is restored either by me or another editor, it should not be removed until it is clear that the notability issues are resolved. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)