Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodestar (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 keep. Tone 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has been marked for questionable notability since October 2007. Few significant additions have been made since, and there are no sources. A search of news archives finds two mentions of a band called Lodestar in the US and one in Singapore, but these appear to be different bands from the one described here. Fails WP:Notability (music). Cnilep (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It needs sources. If none are forthcoming, it should be deleted for lack of verifiability, but it does pass notability based on the Senser connection, if that can be proven. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Contrary to my nomination, the band meets WP:Notability (music), as they released two records with A&M Records. I'll edit the discography on the page. Cnilep (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes MUSIC#5 - AfD is not for cleanup. An article should not be deleted if it has no sources! Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I believe that Cnilep was alluding to Music#5 in his comment above yours. The problem, I think, is that the claim to having two albums released on a major lablel has to date only been asserted, not verified. Unschool 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref from Discogs and an article from Kerrang! magazine from when they supported Tool. Hope this helps! Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - two CDs on a major label. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources to prove that claim? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one I added to the article a few days ago. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 4 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.