Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sober Spike

Sober Spike

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

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the "soon to be" magazine article is published it would not indicate adequate notability. Jminthorne (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a big magazine that WILL be published this month. Sober Spike has also been in The Valley Chronicle, but you'd have to subscribe to it if you wanna actually open the page.

(talk) 08:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While they may have enjoyed minor success, they fail WP:BAND.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The criteria, as stated on the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page, is that: A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria.
- Comment - Please be careful not to make it appear that your two "keep" comments are from different people. Jminthorne (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sober Spike meets the first requirement listed on the page, which is: 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (Skinnie Magazine and The Daily Chronicle) whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The Skinnie article is due very soon and verifiable, and The Daily Chronicle article IS locatable with subscription to the newspaper. Must the page be deleted before the claim about their inclusion in Skinnie magazine can be verified (this month)? And when the Skinnie article is issued, surely that will be enough to keep the band on wikipedia? --Blakemaster2000 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources is not multiple. Where is the Daily Chronicle source? What is the proof of the Skinnie source? Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, two sources IS multiple.

The Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the word "multiple" is: "consisting of, including, or involving more than one." Two is more than one. Therefore, two sources should be considered multiple sources. And if you read my last post thoroughly, you will find the answers to those questions. blake (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the deal. There is no significant coverage IN the article so post the Daily Chronicle source and add content from it with a ref tag if it is offline so that we know that it actually exists. Second, the second article doesn't exist. Third, most users consider multiple 3 or more. Two is usually considered a couple. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... If you follow the fourth reference link, it is quite obvious that the Valley Chronicle article exists. Whether or not you want to pay $5.00 to actually view the article is your choice, but your choice does not affect it's existence. Second, I have already acknowleged that the Skinnie article does not yet exist. Third, it does not matter what most users consider multiple to be. Multiple MEANS more than one. I'm sure wikipedia goes by what a word actually means, and not what "most users" wrongly consider.

blake (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look up couple in the dictionary. Also, the Valley Chronicle is local so that doesn't show notability. And thanks very much for calling me a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, before I say anything, I apologize for that. I'm sorry.. I hope you'll forgive me.

But we're not talking about a couple, we're talking about multiple. I'm pretty sure two words can mean the same thing. And nowhere in the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page does it say that it cannot be local. It says: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media." I would say that the article falls under a published newspaper article. blake (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]