Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two

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. Nomination withdrawn. Lesser of Two passes WP:BAND #5. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable band that was founded by Steven DeCaprio, a non-notable person per the lack of reliable sources about him; see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This band, like its founder, lacks coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Lesser of Two" band DeCaprio) returns no sources. The sources currently in the article are either passing mentions in local publications or coverage in unreliable sources, neither of which establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music). One recurring example I found was three sentence reviews from operationphoenixrecords.com; this website is an insufficient source; its page says, "Heartattack will review all records and CDs that are sent in for review regardless of musical style ... If your record label is financed or owned by a larger company then we will probably not review your releases ... We are only interested in supporting the underground do-it-yourself scene."

Addendum: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embers (band), about a band that was also founded by DeCaprio, is a related debate. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, those sources don't look too good. A well-crafted article, just not one that fits within Wikipedia's notability criteria. Tisane (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My withdrawal from the Embers debate applies to what I'm sure will be a fascinating and well-reasoned debate here, too, just as soon as I hit "Save Page." Lacking coverage in reliable sources, similar problems to the Embers article, if not quite so flagrant. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And first let me note that I am neither an IP nor a new user, so please, no attempts at Poisoning the well, thank you. Anyway - reasons for keep vote are mostly as for Embers, except stronger here. Maximum RocknRoll, HeartattacK, Flipside, Slug and Lettuce are all reliable sources and most general for this genre. One of the record labels <2 released their material on is very notable as one of the first independent record labels in that part of the world. And like with Embers I simply see no reason to delete.radek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ach. Good call. Sorry about that. Deleting that reference. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I understand that these arguments can get heated.radek (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Radeksz (talk · contribs), thank you for listing the sources which you believe establish notability. I have posted an analysis of all 26 sources in the article below. #1 and #3 refute the reliability which you attach to Maximumrocknroll and Flipside. Because there are no links in the article from Slug or Lettuce, I cannot analyze them. Feel free to post them here. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your #1 - "significant coverage" refers to coverage in sourceS (plural) not significant coverage within one source. Re your #3 and general objection to the website - I think you are a little bit confused here (or I am, in which case I apologize in advance); the website is just an online link where some old print publications can be accessed. It's a link of convenience. Per guidelines a source does NOT have to be online for it to be reliable - the link is provided as courtesy, since I think at some point either you or Ginsengbomb was expressing doubt about what was actually in the source.

More generally in regard to the use of fanzines as sources - there are fanzines and there are fanzines. Most of them are not reliable sources (or even worthy of reading) by any stretch of imagination. But MRR, HA, Flipside and S&L are in a different league. MRR offers (or has, it's been awhile since I picked up a copy) the most comprehensive treatment of the genre. Flipside - I actually wouldn't call it a "fanzine" after ... 1990 or so, just "Alternative Music Magazine" (with a good bit of street cred). So yes, these PARTICULAR fanzines are RS.radek (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you are wrong. Passing mentions in several reliable sources do not establish notability. In Lesser of Two's case, there are no reliable sources that discuss it. I concur that a source does not have to be online to be reliable. However, in this situation, the offline sources, if they are also fanzines, lack reliability.

  Fanzines are unreliable because they lack the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable publications (such as newspapers and magazines) have. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving the first point aside (what "significant coverage" refers to) except to note that no, I am not wrong, I can only reiterate that you seem to be misunderstanding the term fanzine here and have a very shake grasp of what these particular "fanzines" actually are. MRR, Flipside, etc. DO in fact have editorial oversight. For the genre that they cover they are in fact much more reliable than less specialized but "bigger" publications.radek (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that fanzines are neutral reliable sources. A look at this issue (archiveurl) of Flipside indicates that it is not neutral, and thus not reliable, and cannot be used as sources in articles. Various quotes from the reviews listed there are:

  A1. "After many minutes of long intense listening and deciphering, I've come to the complex conclusion that this could have been a tolerable and two song single had the recording been done in a studio. New cover art wouldn't hurt either."

  2. ". . . If you get this record, say No too, never play it or say Yes... or you might just see what I saw and hear what I did and you nneevveerr want to see or hear that, ahhhhhhhahhhhh..ha ha ha ... Beware don't buy this record... (even if it is on sale)..."

  3. "When a band releases a record with a cover like this, what they are basically trying to say is 'the music sucks but buy it because then you'll have something to jack off to at night'. I don't care about it being sexist or whatever but they should have at least had the balls to show the actual, um, pussy. A spineless attempt to be shocking."

  The lack of depth and context in #1 and the offensive, immature attacks in #2 and #3 on the albums reviewed indicate that this source is not acceptable for Wikipedia.

  Even if Flipside reviews were assumed to reliable, their reviews about the albums of bands do not provide significant coverage about the subjects that they discuss. In the fanzines used as sources in the article, none establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhh, where do you see it in WP:RS that a "neutrality" of a source plays ANY role in determining whether it's reliable or not? And for crying out loud, you're basing your contention that this is a "non-neutral source" on reviews, which are by definition expressions of subjective aesthetic judgment. Does the fact that Rolling Stone have reviews in it make it not a reliable source as well? NY Times Review of Books? Some of those opinions about particular books are pretty non-neutral you know. And your description of the reviews as "immature" or "lacking depth" (what the hey does that even mean? It's a punk rock magazine!) are your own personal opinions and nothing more. Personally I'd rather read an honest, if brutal and "immature", opinion than the vapid paid-for-by-the-record-label-I-didn't-even-listen-to-it-just-copied-the--promo-the-company-sent-me reviews that appear in "mainstream" publications (even supposedly "alternative" ones - and believe me, that's what mostly happens). Flipside and MRR are two of the longest lasting, most general, most respected, and comprehensive publications in this genre. That's where you're gonna go to to establish notability. The fact that you haven't heard of them only shows that you are unfamiliar with this area and genre, with all the implications that has for the ability to comment on notability here. Likewise, I'd caution against jumping to conclusion about things like record labels and keep in mind that while this is in fact English wikipedia, we do try and present a global perspective rather than a US or Western-centric one.radek (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you consider reviews like #2 and #3 to be acceptable sources for an encyclopedia, we must agree to disagree.

  Opinion articles can be used in Wikipedia but the blatant attacks by the reviewers in #2 and #3 cannot be cited in an encyclopedia. All three reviews lack depth and context in that they do not explain why the albums are good or bad. They tell us nothing about the albums (themes, style, etc.) save for their personal opinion. Three or four sentences of immature personal opinion does not a reliable source make. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Except no one is trying to cite those reviews in the article. You are trying to push through your own opinion of these reviews as "immature" or whatever as a basis for declaring Flipside - one of the most prominent, long lasting and general punk magazines around - as unreliable with respect to the topics it covers. Again, I can only reiterate: you are mistaking your own aesthetic judgement for what the Wikipedia guidelines actually say.radek (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the reviews cannot be cited, they cannot establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regarding criteria 1 in WP:BAND Lesser of Two has received coverage and consistently positive reviews in Maximumrocknroll magazine, Flipside (fanzine), Slug and Lettuce (fanzine), HeartattaCk (magazine), Pasazer magazine from Poland, all of which are reliable sources with editorial control over their content. Regarding criteria 5 of WP:BAND Lesser of Two has numerous releases, independent as well as on the labels Farmhouse Records, Malarie Records (Czech Republic), Terrorismo Sonora (Mexico), Estajanovismo Records (Mexico), Pasazer (Poland), the Krzyk collective (Poland) and most notably Nikt Nic Nie Wie the first independent record label in Poland with other notable acts released. Regarding criteria 4 of WP:BAND Lesser of Two was actively playing shows, touring, and releasing albums for over a decade with numerous releases. They played numerous shows with other notable groups. Regarding criteria 7 WP:BAND Lesser Of Two is one of only 32 entries in Category:American screamo musical groups. Regarding criteria 6 WP:BAND Lesser of Two is continued as a collaboration of Kelly Nelson and Steven DeCaprio in the band Embers which includes a drummer who collaborated in bands with former members of Filth (band), and other members have gone on to form other notable groups. The notability of both groups should be considered cumulatively. Since this band was active in the 90's I am still searching for hard copies of magazines that I can scan and upload. This AfD is premature and the editing process should be allowed to move forward. Remember, deletion should be a last resort if notability is unclear and people should help find sources themselves before jumping to AfD as per WP:FAILN. Google hits is not a criteria to determine notability. This band passes notability standards for 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Also, Steven DeCaprio is a notable squatter activist as well as musician. The Embers (band) article has multiple reliable sources confirming this. I should note that many notable bands have non-notable members, and this is not a legitimate argument against. However, if notable, this could be an argument for keeping the article as per 6 WP:BAND. noodle 06:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• I encourage you to find significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Many of the points you raised above do not determine whether an article merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Your argument about WP:BAND #6 is invalid; this band does not pass it because neither Embers (band) nor Filth (band) are notable.

  Wikipedia:Verifiability, which this article fails, is one of the key issues here. This band lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources, so none of the information in the article can be verified.

  The sources are listed below:

None of the sources listed above is from a reliable source. The sources in the article are either fanzines, calendars, personal websites, or directories, none of which can be used to establish that this band passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Band has had albums released by notable Polish punk label Nikt Nic Nie Wie. Also Operation Phoenix has some reliable references. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Now they're out to get Lesser of Two" – user was canvassed.
  Nikt Nic Nie Wie is not a "major label or one of the more important indie labels" that is required by WP:MUSIC #5. Nikt Nic Nie Wie is dubiously notable.

  I have explained above why Operation Phoenix is an unreliable source. The article contains no reliable references and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Noodlesteve (talk · contribs) has been canvassing multiple users, writing "Please help" on their talk pages. See 1, 2, 3, etc. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, you are misrepresenting the facts. All of the individuals I contacted were already part of the editing process or AfD discussion for Embers (band) and/or Lesser of Two. You yourself said these are related discussions and encouraged others to go to both AfD discussions. (Does that mean you are stacking?) I ask that you do not take my "specific individual discussion[s]" out of context because they are in keeping with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. Let's stick to our arguments and stop attacking people contributing to this discussion. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

Hmm... what's wrong with asking for help, if he doesn't have enough reliable sources? Maybe the people, who were participating in the Embers discussion, could provide any. Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No evidence Nikt Nic Nie Wie is "one of the more important indie labels" for wp:music #5. Another case of overloading an article with refs to make the subject look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I've read on NNNW website, the label is >20 years old. And since they have worked with such bands as Crass, Chumbawamba and Oi Polloi, I can't figure out how there may be "no evidence that Nikt Nic Nie Wie is one of the more important indie labels". Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could really use a little more time to collect sources, scan them, and upload them. I have been asking others for help, but it seems there is little interest in digging through hard copies of music magazines from the 90's. I understand and so it is up to me. I have recently uploaded the following sources for Lesser of Two: File:MRR.LoT.Cover.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.SceneR.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.1.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.2.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.3.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.4.jpg, File:Flipside.LoT.cover.JPG, File:Flipside.LoT.review.JPG.

Also, Cunard has made a blanket argument that all magazines covering DIY or independent punk are not reliable. Such an attitude, if allowed to prevail, would be disastrous for coverage of the genre of music being discussed.

Also, I have not driven anyone or canvassed anyone. I have only informed those already involved in these articles about the discussion. I have also mentioned it in the punk and metal portals since I am concerned people are more interested in deleting articles than they are in the genre of music being discussed. I believe having people familiar with the subject matter involved in this discussion adds more validity to it. All the users Cunard listed are people you can see have been part of the editing process or the Embers (band) AfD. Please let's not be conspiratorial or make personal attacks. Let's focus on the merits of our respective arguments. noodle 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Where does Cunard make "a blanket argument that all magazines covering DIY or independent punk are not reliable"? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

above Cunard stated, "Fanzines, the second most prevalent of the sources used here (the first is calendars), are generally not reliable sources." (italis added) I would consider that a blanket statement. Wouldn't you? javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

• Your messages violate Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the link you refer to and since these are direct messages to those already involved in the discussion or the editing process Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning does not apply. These are "specific individual discussions". Also, I did post a message in the punk and metal portals to generate interest by people who are knowledgable on the subject. To violate the policy you refer to one must "sway ... through the use of tone, wording, or intent" None of that is occuring here so stop repeating these accusations and stick to you arguments. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

• The blue box on the side clearly shows that you are trying to sway the people you are canvassing. The words "Now they're out to get Lesser of Two" and "... Lesser of Two is a band with many more references and accomplishments" (mine emphasized), "Please help" are clearly not written in a neutral tone. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources here are mainly a) interviews where the band members talk about themselves or b) unreliable reviews of albums that lack context. Thank you for uploading these sources here, but none of them are of the depth and reliability required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cunard's analysis is misleading. The interview is a discussion with a writer for the magazine where he asks questions of the band members. It is four pages in Maximumrocknroll the most well established punk magazine in the world. Equating it to a press release is inaccurate. I recommend that everyone take a look for yourself and not rely on Cunard or my opinions on the uploaded files since both of us are not neutral on the subject. I will break things down as Cunard has in a moment, but first I must continue the research I was in the middle of on the articles before this double AfD smackdown broke out. noodle 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the note posted as an addendum to the relevant guideline that Cunard is quoting. The note reads, as a clarifying example relating to the guideline: "For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist." I am not -sure- that the guideline Cunard is referencing precludes the source that Noodle has uploaded. It's clearly not an "endorsement interview," either way. It's an independent interview that appears to have been requested by the magazine, and it's lengthy and seems to suggest that the magazine considers the act to be notable (they're on the cover, after all...not that that is "coverage," I'm just using it as context). That said, the language Cunard is referencing in his counter-argument does appear within the guidelines, and I can see it being interpreted in the way he is interpreting it.

  I'm not quite changing my vote yet -- want to have more than five minutes to look into this and see if I can find other examples relevant to this situation -- but this is at least a significant grey area in a debate that had previously seemed relatively black-and-white to me. I promise to get back to this later when I've had more a chance to collect my thinking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A source where the members talk about themselves for four pages is not sufficient in that the information is not from a third-party. If there were several paragraphs of information written by someone unrelated to the band, this would be a factor in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maximumrocknroll- "Maximum RocknRoll is considered by many to be one of the most important presences in punk, not only because of its wide-ranging coverage, but because it has been a constant and ideologically influential presence in the ever-changing punk community for two decades.". Lesser of Two has multiple reviews and mentions in the pages of MRR most notably the four page articles I have uploaded (see above). Lesser of Two was reviewed in MRR a number of times all of which were favorable. They also discuss their Mexico tour. which is a separate criteria for notability. Again more time to find and scan hard copies would be nice.
• HeartattaCk- Heartattack was "one of half a dozen major punk fanzines in the USA during the 1990s.". Not only did Lesser of Two receive consistently positive reviews in Heartattack over the years, but their live performance was considered part of a staff members "top ten" stating, "live, War Circus CD and great fucking people". The top ten of a live performance bears upon both 1 and 4 of WP:BAND when taken in context of the MRR article.
• Flipside- "As one of the first and longest running US punk rock fanzines, this publication extensively chronicled the world of independent and underground music during this era." Lesser of Two received multiple positive reviews in Flipside. I'm not sure if the coverage extends beyond that, but I still have just started digging into the back issues which are not readily available online during the time frame we are discussing.
• Slug and Lettuce- Slug and Lettuce "is published quarterly and in spring 2007, it will be twenty years old." Lesser of Two received positive reviews in Slug and Lettuce. I am trying to find hard copies during the time frame in question, but it takes time (probably longer than this AfD) so I'd appreciate a little WP:AGF on this one. I should note that it is easy to find all the aforementioned that were published during the 80's, but 90's and 00's issues are less available online.
• Pasazer- Is a Polish punk zine that's released 26 issues thus far. It seems reliable and very well put together. I have found a review of this zine which states that this zine put out a compilation C.D. featuring Lesser of Two. If anyone speaks Polish and/or has a copy of issues #13-14 that would be helpful.
• All other references are merely for verification of particular facts in the article and do not add to the notability argument. I also believe their was other coverage, but this is what I've found thus far. Remember I've had only two weeks to do this research, and I did have a life before wikipedia. Since Lesser of Two toured extensively in Europe and Mexico as per the MRR article their are probably other sources such as Pasazer which I merely stumbled across doing web searches.noodle 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• Maximumrocknroll – a four page interview in which the band members talk about themselves does not establish notability. There is no other content save for the questions and the responses. The information cannot be considered secondary coverage.
• HeartattaCk – the following one sentence mention of Lesser of Two (live, War Circus CD and great fucking people) lacks substance in that it provides little analysis of the band or its album. A one sentence mention is trivial coverage.
• I have refuted why Flipside is not a sufficient source due to its lack of reliability and due to the lack of depth in the coverage (two to three sentence reviews that have little substance).
• Slug and Lettuce – passing mentions, if this is what the reviews consist of, do not establish notability.
• Pasazer – your description of this source indicates that it is a passing mention. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of Two released records on Nikt Nic Nie Wie (Poland), Malarie Records (Czech Republic), Terrorismo Sonora (Mexico), Estajanovismo Records (Mexico), Farmhouse Records (USA), Beyond this they self released the majority of their music due to their DIY ethic (See MRR above). Although I think exceptions should be made for expressly DIY bands they still had two or more releases on major independent labels which are labels existing over a "few years" with a roster of other notable acts.

• Nikt Nic Nie Wie (self titled tape with Polish translations) is the first independent label in Poland and has released numerous notable bands. That should be relatively non-controversial if one looks. The next most prolific label is
• Malarie (self titled 12" vinyl) is the next most prolific label which has recently released an album by MDC (band) and has released many other notable bands including Zounds, Harum Scarum (see Cypher_in_the_Snow), and Homo Militia to name a few.([1], [2]) Since this label is still active it fulfills both criteria of 5 WP:BAND
• Estajanovismo (self titled tape with Spanish translations) is a label from Mexico that has been around since the early 1990's and has released other notable bands such as Varukers, Resist and Exist (see Total Chaos (band)), The Ex (band), Wolfbrigade and much more.
• Terrorismo Sonora I do not know if this label is prolific enough to qualify for critera 5 of WP:BAND. I will have to do more research, but criterea 5 only requires two or more.
• Farmhouse Records (Farmhouse '94 Compilation 12" and CD) was established in 1993 and has released albums with Submission Hold (band) and Useless ID. I would list more but you guys get the point.

Since we have at least four releases on important independent labels then we have met this standard of notability as well as the other aforementioned criteria due to coverage in reliable publications. javascript:insertTags('noodle 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• The external links provided above do not verify that Lesser Than Two has released albums on these record labels.

  Nonetheless, there is a chance that this passes [WP:MUSIC]] #5 per your comments above. WP:MUSIC #5 states:

“

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

”

If you are able to provide verification from reliable sources that Lesser than Two has released two or more albums on one of labels you mentioned above, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NNNW: this is listed in the NNNW catalog as release #90 along with numerous notable bands.
• Malarie: the website distro's all Lesser of Two releases as well as Embers (band) (see: related discussion), and states, "first was released by band on CD, NNNW on casssete and MALARIE on vinyl."
• Estajanovismo/Terrorismo Sonora: This was a limited edition tape co-release in support of Lesser of Two's tour in Mexico. I can't find anything online so this may require another trip to the scanner.
• Farmhouse: Farmhouse '94 is a rare out of print record. I found it for $45 at wegotrecords.com

• Remember that criteria #5 of WP:BAND does not require a "reliable" source as does criteria #1 and #4. These source are sufficient for verification under WP:SELFPUB. javascript:insertTags('noodle 19:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• Please list the two albums that this band has released on a "major label" / "more important indie label". And list the sources that correspond to those two albums. From your post above, it is unclear as to which two albums are from the "major label" / "more important indie label". Cunard (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say the links above qualify ALL the labels as "important indie" except Terrorismo Sonora (due to lack of information at this moment, it's a co-release anyway). At this point I would say NNNW, Malarie, AND Farmhouse since the links above prove they exist and are "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" as per #5 WP:BAND. The Malarie link above breaks it down pretty well. I could get a scan of the Estajanovismo, but it might take some time.

I hope we don't have to debate the meaning of the words "two", "few", and "many" in #5 WP:BAND because I think this AfD has been sufficiently exhaustive and served it's purpose.javascript:insertTags('noodle 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• Changing Vote to Weak Keep The MRR source is a significant change and requires a significant change in my thinking on this particular article. It is a four page interview conducted by a notable publication with the band, who also made their cover in the issue (as I said above, I am referencing the cover mention for -context-, not notability in and of itself). Insofar as the music notability rules are inherently (and explicitly) somewhat open to interpretation, and given that the rule at issue ("Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.") seems, to me, to be governing endorsement interviews, press releases, etc., wherein the band at issue is generating content in a wholly independent, self-starting fashion, my opinion is that the rule at issue doesn't apply to the MRR source. My interpretation of the rule is that it applies to material wholly generated by a band. While an interview in a notable source could be considered as material generated by the band, it is -not- something the band is paying for, sponsoring, or responsible for, in terms of motivating its inclusion in the notable source. This is very different from "press releases, or other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves," which I can't imagine applies to all interviews in noteworthy publications. That's an enormously broad interpretation of the rule. So, insofar as my opinion is that the MRR source is substantial, non-trivial coverage (a non-endorsement interview is inherently "coverage"), it confers notability. The MRR source, taken in conjunction with other sourcing, Lof2's apparently lengthy history and broad coverage, changes my opinion of the band's notability.

  I say "weak keep" and not "keep" because the other sourcing is still questionable, although at this point I do not doubt Noodlesteve that the other sources exist. I think he has been unintentionally misleading in the past about the actual -depth- of some coverage (emphasis on unintentionally -- Noodle's clearly acting in good faith, and the misleading bits could be chalked up to differences in semantics), but he's thus far dug up much of what he's claimed is out there and has gone out of his way to put it up here for evaluation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The MRR source cannot be considered a reliable, substantive source. A sampling of the questions/answers are:
  1. "So does it relate to ideas like anarchy and communism and shit like that?"
  2. "Dude, you're just fucking (unintelligible)...Fugazi. You can't do that."
  3. "Along those lines, you guys have been around a long time and you're all fucking old and stuff (chuckling)..."
  4. "... They have basement shows at their houses and do Food Not Boms shit, and have bands in their basement who don't go out for Fat Records or whatever."
  The last question in the interview is: "Any last statements?"
  The answers are:
  a) Dominik: "Yeah, I want to say hi to my rats.
  b) Steve: Tell them Kelly says, "Keep on truckin'."
  c) Kelly: No.
  d) Dominik: Eat vegan food and fuck shit up. That's what I got to say.

  I don't see how this interview or this publication can be considered to be a reliable source. An unreliable fanzine publishing an unreliable four page interview does not establish notability.

  I, too, do not doubt that other sources exist; however, if they are like the ones proffered in this debate, they cannot be used to establish notability or verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that Cunard has consistently quoted people and publications out of context. Your personal opinions about the publications are not a valid argument. As more fully stated above these sources are the most reliable in the genre. Certainly the writing will be different than The New York Times, National Geographic, or Nature Magazine but these publications do not cover the genres of DIY punk or screamo. javascript:insertTags('noodle 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• The above quotes show the unreliability of the publications and how they are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No they do not. You are consistently providing your own personal aesthetic judgement as an ultimate source of arbitration here. That's not how it works. Look, aesthetics and writing styles are going to vary from genre to genre. A description of some work or an interview in a Dadaist magazine is going to be different than a description in a magazine dedicated to soft-jazz. People will write differently when they're covering the Velvet Underground than when they're covering Mozart. The fact that one doesn't look like the other does not make either unreliable or non notable. By throwing out major publications like MRR and Flipside, you're basically trying to declare a whole musical/literary genre non notable. Is Cometbus non-notable also? You're definitely on a very slippery slope here.radek (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles that cannot be cited in an encyclopedia cannot be considered reliable sources.

  "Writing under the pen name Aaron Cometbus, Elliott has self-published his usually handwritten zine (Cometbus) ever since, despite a few breaks." Cometbus cannot be considered reliable.

  I have said above that I will withdraw this AfD if those supporting retention can prove that the band passes WP:BAND #5. Please help Noodlesteve (talk · contribs) in doing this. In this case, I will even accept unreliable sources such as MRR, Flipside, and Cometbus. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't ask if Cometbus was reliable, I asked if it was notable - the point being that a hand written, self published zine can be very notable, and influential (in fact that's part of the whole point behind the DIY ethic). MRR and Flipside are indeed reliable. More generally, I don't see why WP:BAND #5 should be a deal breaker here. The guideline is clear in that it says "at least one" criteria, not "all of the criteria". In fact it says: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; ... These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. And Noodlesteve has provided evidence on several other points already.radek (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A topic being notable does not translate into it being reliable.

  WP:BAND #5 is the "deal breaker" because none of the other criteria is met. There is a possibility, though, that the band passes WP:BAND #5. The other criteria are not met because passing mentions in unreliable sources, which fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The other criteria are met because the band is covered in sources which ARE reliable, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.radek (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with both of you here. Cometbus does in fact suck (my personal opinion), but it is also reliable (editorial control and huge readership). Why are we talking about Cometbus... noodle 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
• Using capital letters does not strengthen your position. The sources provided in this discussion are mainly one-sentence mentions and three-sentence reviews; this is trivial coverage. The interview is not a sufficient source because it consists solely about the band talking about themselves. The sources here are not reliable or sufficient because of their tone and lack of depth/context (lack of discussion about themes, history of the band, history of the band, etc.). Cunard (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Cunard, you are saying the band talked only about themselves for four pages, but there was a "Lack of discussion about themes, history of the band, history of the band, etc." How can a band talk about themselves and yet simultaneously fail to talk about themselves. Are we reading the same article or are you still reading Cometbus? If you read the article they were asked the meaning of lyrics, about their political views, about the history of the band, about DIY, anarchism, etc. I don't even know if this matters since according to WP:BAND all you need is something more than a passing reference. None of this is relevant to notability, but rather the content of the article as a citable source. javascript:insertTags('noodle 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

• The interview is not a sufficient source for establishing notability because all of the content in the interview (save for the questions) was written by the band. It is not coverage written by someone unrelated to the band. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike publications about history, science, current events and so on music publications often use interviews when covering bands and musicians. The second more common type of coverage are reviews (concerts or albums). The third more common type of coverage is events listings. This is true even for mainstream publications. The first two are acceptable under WP:BAND. The third is not, but you reject all three leaving nothing else. Rarely do you have an article written by people with PHDs in rockology or whatever.

The fact that the questions were formulated by the magazine is extremely important. It forces the band to talk about topics of interest to the readers not what is convenient to the band such as a press release. Although the word count of the questions may be low compared to the responses the article is still controlled by the publication. The band is forced to respond to questions they do not control, and their responses can be fact checked and edited pursuant to an editorial process. Honestly, I don't know what Cunard would consider reliable at this point. javascript:insertTags('noodle 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

The band being "forced" to answer questions from an unreliable publication does not invalidate the fact that the responses cannot be considered secondary coverage. I would consider Billboard (magazine), USA Today, etc. to be reliable sources.

Would you answer the request I posted to you at User talk:Noodlesteve#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two? I am still unclear as to which two albums are from the same major label. If this question can be answered, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant guideline again. It does not require the band to have releases on "major labels" - which would be ridiculous, particularly for DYI bands. Likewise publications like USA Today or Billboard are completely inappropriate for this genre. It's basically like asking that publications devoted to cars and trucks be presented to verify the notability of jogging or dog walking. Apples and oranges. MRR and Flipside are both the relevant reliable sources here.radek (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please list the two albums that are from the same important label. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I responded further up in this page directly behind your comment on the list of releases above. Also, USA Today is not a music magazine, and Billboard follows record sales not any particular genre of music. Neither have any considerable coverage of the genre at issue. Do you know of a more reliable publication covering the genre of punk than MRR, or screamo than HeartattaCk? javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
• [3] - there are two releases by Lesser of Two ("Swing" and "Man… Kind"). I don't know much about Farmhouse Records, but looks like they have a long history (about 15 years), and they have signed a few notable bands (including Useless ID, who are one of the most well-known punk bands in Israel, Submission Hold, and J.M.K.E.). Black Kronstadt (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for providing that source. That, and the record labels provided by Noodlesteve, indicate that the band passes WP:BAND #5. Nomination withdrawn. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (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.