Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tora (band) (2nd nomination)

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. Nakon 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tora (band)

Tora (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non

• Delete. It's not literally the same article that was deleted, but it isn't any better - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• changed opinion to Keep after Shaidar comes through yet again - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Seems promotional in nature, also, don't predict the next big thing. . This band has not done anything noteworthy yet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as my searches are simply finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been converted since the last AfD. Although there is a mountain of poor sources in the article, there are some which are reliable. Other RS, not yet in the article, include Triple J playlist, vimeo of European tour, and 10+ reviews at the AU review (one of these is in the article). All the RS (both in and out of the article) means the group meets notability criteria at
  WP:BAND#4, 11 and 12. Although it is poorly worded and supported the article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • hmm. Your opinion on this sort of thing is very good IME. Add those sources and I may change my !vote - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single play is not rotation, there is no sign of #11 being satisfied. A random individual video on Vimeo is not a reliable source. Reading the blurb and watching it, it is from someone connected to the band, not independent. AU Review does not appear to be a reliable source, [1]. Most there do not go past trivial coverage of Tora. The interviews are them talking about themselves, not independent. The sourcing verifies the touring but does not give any significant coverage of it. So #4 is not met. As for #12, where does that claim come from. No sign of that anywhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comments: I dispute your interpretations:
        1. More Triple J playlists are available here: 1, 2 and 3. When added to their winning a section of the Unearthed competition this means the claim of high rotation is sustained.
        2. Hardly a random individual. The video is a teaser for the fuller documentary and shows that the band did undertake an international tour of Europe.
        3. Why do you believe AU Review is not reliable? Some of the AU reviews are rather brief but others provide substantial coverage of the subject including interviews and reviews of their touring or releases.
        4. They were the subject of a radio broadcast, interview and on-air performance on ABC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looks a lot more impressive there but it's still not rotation. Better than I first saw but it's still discrete plays, not on their playlist. Not all unearthed competitions give their winners rotation. The likes of Unearthed High do but the sort Tora won, for individual supports fro concerts of festivals, do not. Rotation has not been sustained.

2. Random individual. Not staff. Not known reporter. Just someone who uploaded some videos. It verifies Tora toured but does not provide any independent coverage.

3. Amongst others. "Provide bands and promoters with a publication that will support them editorially at no cost". No sign of editorial oversight. No sign of established staff. "Provide up-and-coming writers and photographers with a unique online source, helping them establish a name and an identity that goes beyond the usual constraints of the internet. It’s THEIR content, not ours."

4. "a substantial broadcast segment". Like a half hour independent documentary about them. Not a run of the mill promo appearance on a radio broadcast where they talk about themselves and play a song or two. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Once again, I dispute your interpretations:

1. Each of the Triple J articles are titled something like "Program Playlists" or "Playlists ". Alessio and Kingsmill believe they've added Tora to their Triple J playlists; so do I.
2. At least you concede that Tora toured internationally.
3. No sign of established staff? No editorial oversight? Clearly you didn't delve further: consider this. Amongst others. "Founding editor Larry Heath" (also the author or co-author of some of the items cited), "Editor-in-Chief Sosefina Fuamoli" and "Contributing Editors (Music):" (which includes Jana Angeles, a co-author).
4. YMMV. I see this as an independent documentary about the band.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's still not rotation. Saying it is as the article now does is simply a lie.

2. Of course I do, they just lack the coverage about it.

3. How'd I miss that, I'll check the articles again.

4. Nope, just promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following the substantive work by Shaidar cuebiyar, there appears to be sufficient grounds to satisfy
  WP:NMUSIC (in particular criteria 4 - where there has been coverage of their tour of Canada, appearance at Canadian Music Week and tour of Europe). Dan arndt (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Convincing from earlier commentary. It should be kept.Zedopuppy (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't find any solid reason to say delete. Some copyediting can make it look better.--Musa Talk  21:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has plenty of sources, and a quick search revealed even more than already listed. Although they might not all be reliable, there's clearly enough coverage to pass GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:48, 10 May 2016 (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.