Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Kids Rock (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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_8. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article cites no WP:RS sources and is overtly promotional. But a quick Google strongly suggests the subject is in fact notable. This article needs major improvements though. On a side note, why do we have an AfD discussion if the nom is not presenting an argument for deletion? If a previous delete was overturned then it would seem the correct course would be to reopen the old AfD or ask the original nom if he/she wants to renominate the article for deletion. Anywho just my 2 cents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Well, I am the original nominator, and in the deletion review I said:

"the edit history on the page, which is woefully sparse, consisting essentially of a yearly cycle where a shill for the company inserts a bunch of promotional material and someone else takes it out. In my view, a good hint that an organisation is notable is that uninvolved editors have some interest in editing the page in and of itself. By that metric, LKR is about as notable as my laundry list.

I agree with the suggestion above that it would be better to identify one or two clearly good sources than to stack up this mass of recycled press releases; "independent" is a stretch when plainly something has arrived from the organisation or a celebrity's PR flacks and been used to fill up an awkward gap on page 92. On the other hand, there is an argument that we don't judge that kind of thing; if enough reliable sources reprint that fluff, it counts."

I don't think it would be the end of the world if the article stuck around and was radically pruned back, but it would still be nice to have one or two unequivocally decent sources not this mass of Phil Space. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is fairly obvious, article passes WP:GNG here are some WP:RS, NPR, NY Times, and NYTimes source article (same author). There are more sources such as this BBC. The DRV nominator should add these to the article, this should have never been deleted. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep (copied in part from my DRV comments) There are a fair number of relevant sources including [1], [2], [3], and a fair number more listed at [4]. While most of the coverage is local, we've got coverage in the WSJ, the Boston Globe, and coverage by local sources (many entirely on the subject) in LA, TX, NY, and CA. While someone could argue that the sources aren't enough (the ones that aren't local are "too short" or something) it's plain this meets WP:N by a fair margin and that we have enough in reliable sources to write an article. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the organization and its efforts meet the notability standard. The article needs work to address tone and better integrate the sources into the article, but that's a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2014 (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.