Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Ritual (band)

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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Ritual (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak keep at present. I found very little from Google searches but there was a review in Vice magazine, which appears to have moved from its original URL and they were listed on the cover of Maximumrocknroll, which almost certainly means that there was an article about them inside. Both of these would very likely constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A case of significant coverage very probably existing but not easily found on the internet.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a weak keep - the Fader article, Vice review, and MAXRNR coverage is probably sufficient for a keep.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources Francium12 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what sources? None have been added to the article and the Google hits above aren't what I'd call "significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources".--RadioFan (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable local group with self releases only. feydey (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only self-releases. Nowhere near enough notability. -WarthogDemon 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their records aren't self-released, not sure why people are saying that.Prezbo (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discography in the article specifically identifies 2 of the recordings as self released and the low volume produced of the others indicates self release as well. All the record labels claimed in the discography section appear to exist but they all appear to be very very small, and none appear to be notable. Very small record labels could meet notability guidelines here if they are producing niche music that is widely reviewed or referenced but that does not appear to be the case here. --RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Their demo tapes are self-releases. The releases on Youth Attack! clearly are not. These are the sort of volumes of pressing that are typical for small labels, and 3,000 copies of their LP being pressed strongly suggests that it sold over 2,000 copies, which is not an insignificant amount for a non-mainstream band.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Attack! actually has quite a long history of releases ([1]).--Michig (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately the amount of coverage this band has received still appears to be insignificant and not up to notability guidelines. Perhaps a well referenced article on Youth Attack! would help.--RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The body of work doesn't appear notable at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (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.