Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindlag Project

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. Nom withdrew deletion, and several sources added. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlag Project

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

article was originally sourced almost entirely by links to the band's myspace account, after i removed those and asked for proper sources the article author provided links to a website selling the band's albums. most refs in the article are directly associated with the band, the handful that aren't don't appear to indicate notability beyond local coverage as per WP:BAND. in addition, the article is written from the POV of someone with first person knowledge of the subject. very little in the way of factual statements, the majority of the information is WP:OR with refs provided as an afterthought. posting this AfD for other users consideration to gauge response before i render a "delete" or "keep". WookieInHeat (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, but I could easily be persuaded to change that. Of the 19 references given, 15 are of no value at all, as they all suffer from one or more of (1) only brief mention of Mindlag Project, (2) not an independent source, (3) not a reliable source. However, there are four sources which conceivably may be better: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. However, it is impossible to assess the value of these sources. Three of them are simply scans of printed articles, with no indication whatsoever where they come from. They may be from reliable newspapers, they may be from publicity material. The fourth is a web page on a site which gives no indication, as far as I can see, as to who runs it or what its nature is. It looks very much as though it may be no more than a fan site. If, before this AfD's week runs out, some of these four sources can be shown to be significant reliable sources then I may be prepared to say "keep", but if not then it has to be "delete" for lack of verifiable evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ 4 heavily resembles a fan site. as for the first three, i don't believe "scanned copies of articles you cut out of a magazine and kept in your drawer for the last three years" is covered in WP:RS. if the articles themselves were cited thus identifying the sources, they might be legitimate; however i stongly suspect they wouldn't pass for anything more than "local coverage". ultimately though these sources, providing they were properly refed and met WP:RS, would hardly justify a stub article. even if they were to be used in that manner, it would be less work to write it from scratch then to try and salvage anything from here. hence my tendency is to lean towards delete as well. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn i have been in contact with the original author of the article and they requested my assitance in fixing up the refs and language to avoid deletion. they have provided the sources for the few WP:RS refs given and they seem legit enough to justify some form of notability. with the other editors knowledge of the band and my grasp of wikipolicy and the english language, i think we will be able to make it work. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:29, 20 October 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.