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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fyodor[edit]

Little Fyodor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lacks 3rd party reliable sources (external links are primary blogs or primary sources from the label). Is this band notable enough for an article or should this be merged into the label's article? There are some Google news hits but they are primarily entries in the local newspaper's entertainment calendar rather than significant coverage.Rtphokie (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- no notability at all, not notable enough to be covered in the label article either. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This artist is obscure, but the notability failure claims are tenuous at best. There is limited press, but this artist has been playing live and releasing tapes for years, and hosts a radio show in denver. riffic (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The weekly alternative paper seems like a reasonable enough source to use but the citations from blogs dont really help establish notability here. WP:NOTABILITY is looking for significant coverage sources that address the subject directly in detail. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- There are a few reliable news articles behind a paywall [1], including Denver Post and Chicago Sun-Times. Also, I oppose a merger with The Elephant 6 Recording Company as this artist wasn't part of the collective, other than one release on the label. riffic (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Those are great sources but are the articles about this band or do they mearly mention the band in some larger context? I"m still not seeing significant coverage. Also rather than adding simple untitled links, please see WP:CITE for more information on how to cite information in an article. --Rtphokie (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial coverage. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I'm not sure if you had a chance to view this article.. As it stands there are four references cited, all of these are independent 3rd party sources. This subject is not lacking 3rd party coverage riffic (talk) 16:35, 26 February 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.