Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Dinosaurs

Add links
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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Dinosaurs

[edit]
Last Dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable indie band. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mostly I can't add urls. there is one here. they can all be verified with Factiva. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a reference provided that supports this. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While an indie band, they have decent coverage on a state/national level. Trying to add links to add to verifiability of the cites. Dengero (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Music, song and band guideline is very specific on the maintainability of articles which fall under that scope, for music groups, they need at least some charted songs and some charted albums, which in this case they do not have, if they have uncharted song, then if they have awards from notable awards academy or any other artist or group has covered their song they are also notable, which they fail. Providing sources for their background are not enough to suffice notability.--Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. no attempt is made to explain notability. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not seeing a strong claim of notability in the article, just that they exist, have recorded an EP and have been praised by some sources of unclear reliability. Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions. The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself). The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified. This band might meet notability guidelines one day but that day doesn't appear to be today. Wikipedia is not here to promote indy bands. RadioFan (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They meet wp:music#1, the one about coverage. Why are you pretending that there is not six other references? The rotation claim is verified in the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see comments above for specific concerns about the references. Also, which article supports the claim of rotation nationally?--RadioFan (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only issue you raise with the six references that you ignored above is that there is no links. That is not a concern. All are verifiable and I have seen no question to their reliability. For rotation nationally, look at the Last Dinosaurs article, read down to the statement that says that one of their tracks had national rotation. Go to the end of that sentance. There is a small number there. Scroll down near the end of the artiocle and you will see a references section. Find the matching number and you will see the reference that verifies the claim. (the relevant quote, "and was unearthed by Triple J a year later, with its first single Honolulu shooting to high rotation on the national station." "Habit for success", Canberra Times, 31 March 2011) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please refer to the point by point concerns listed just above from 14 August.--RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The concerns ignore 6 references from the article? Again why? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In direct reply to issues rased on the 14th. Starting from "Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND". I have claimed the satisfy #1. The 6 reference you still fail to recognise show that. "No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions." True but noone has claimed that, why bring it up, see from WP:MUSIC, at least one of the following criteria. "The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of --undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself)." Not true, there is six other references. "The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified." It has been verified, see (at time of writing) ref 6. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty verifying ref #6 in the article, it mentions a newspaper and an article title but no URL, is one available? --RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No URL that I know of. I saw it thru Factiva, another option is libraries. From WP:V, The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if "rotation" on a nationally televised free-to-air show is enough, but this search shows that they have been on Rage lots of times. The-Pope (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "free to air". Sounds a bit like a step up from a podcast. Not the independent 3rd party reliable source WP:GNG and WP:BAND are looking for. We've got radio program like that in the states, sometimes produced by a small local radio station that makes the program available to other stations to play (generally in the wee hours Sunday into Monday mornings) at not cost. Does that describe this show playing this bands music or is it something else?--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically. When recently published, newspaper references are included in an article and no URL can be produced, it naturally raises some questions about the validity of the source. Even very very small newspapers have websites where they make a good portion of their printed content available. Some dont, but many (most?) do, thus the question.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Free-to-air and Free-to-air#Australia. It is definitely not "a step up from a podcast" – it simply means that it isn't pay TV. There are only five major free-to-air television networks in Australia and they are far more popular than pay TV. Also, did you click on the links The-Pope gave? Rage is not a radio program, it is a television program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's, Australia's national public broadcaster, flagship television station, ABC1. This is the equivalent of BBC One in the UK. To claim that the ABC is not independent or reliable is ludicrous. As to "it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically", do you have any evidence for that? Because my reading of WP:V is completely different. That said, I have Factiva access and I'm willing to have a look at any references that concern you. Can you please point out which ones currently in the article are of concern to you? Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. You might want to settle down a bit. I made no such claim that ABC is not reliable. I asked for more information on the source and outlined what the concenrns would be if the reference was coming from a primary source with little or no oversight. Thats not the case here so it's fine. Please be careful not to put words in others mouths.--RadioFan (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'm withdrawing this AFD. Verifiable evidence that this band is in regular radio rotation on a national basis is sufficient to meet WP:BAND.--RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Last_Dinosaurs&oldid=1069500279"