Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Love Not Lisa

:{{la|For Love Not Lisa}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/For_Love_Not_Lisa Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|For Love Not Lisa}})

Contested PROD. Fails :WP:GNG and :WP:MUSICBIO. I couldn't find anything in my Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Doesn't fail WP:MUSICBIO though, does it? Two albums on EastWest and one on Tooth & Nail easily passes criterion 5 and the use of "Slip Slide Melting" in the soundtrack of The Crow passes criterion 10. These are clearly stated in the article and easily verified so why are we here? Because you didn't find much on Google for a band from the 1990s? Even though most of the coverage from the band's era is likely to be in offline print sources, Google still brings up [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Li0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT8&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgVzVdaNA6Gy7QankoLwAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false a CMJ review], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H6g4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgVzVdaNA6Gy7QankoLwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg Option], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA50&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgVzVdaNA6Gy7QankoLwAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false Billboard], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cZcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgVzVdaNA6Gy7QankoLwAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false a book], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xwI5AQAAIAAJ&q=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgZzVeKSOOXO7gbwnIHQCw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7wsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jwZzVdfkINTQ7AbNwoGADQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false Billboard again], [http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=chainsaw_kittens Trouser Press], [http://www.allmusic.com/artist/for-love-not-lisa-mn0000181086/biography Allmusic bio] and four reviews: [http://www.allmusic.com/album/for-love-not-lisa-mw0000880908], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/merge-mw0000104875], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/information-superdriveway-mw0000645501], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-lost-elephant-mw0000253000], [http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095828975 Encyclopedia of Popular Music] (via Oxford Reference). This should be speedily kept. --Michig (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• E of CCM is one paragraph that spans pages 335-6. CMJ is a brief mention. Option are bullet-point entries, nothing substantial. First Billboard "Also on hand" that's it, second is one sentence as well. One sentence in Majorlabelland And Assorted Oddities. Not even sure what Trouser Press is (a blog?) but it only lists them by name and no further details. AllMusic isn't bad and I did see that. Overall, not enough to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Have you actually read WP:MUSICBIO? --Michig (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• I helped write it, so yes, I have. Do you understand it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

::*I'd argue that the CMJ article would count towards notability since it's a review of the third album (albeit a fairly negative one). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

::*The Option bit looks like a review and I've put it in the article, but without a better look I'm kind of iffy on that one. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cZcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgVzVdaNA6Gy7QankoLwAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false This book] isn't usable for notability purposes since it's self-published through iUniverse. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

::*[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7wsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=%22for+love+not+lisa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jwZzVdfkINTQ7AbNwoGADQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=%22for%20love%20not%20lisa%22&f=false This Billboard mention] is too brief to be used as a RS, although the [http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=chainsaw_kittens Trouser Press] looks like it'd be considered a review. Something to take into consideration with reviews is that they don't have to be exceedingly long. There have been multiple discussions on this on the various forums (books, films, etc) and unless it's a one off mention in an article that's clearly about something else (ie, an article talking about a film festival that mentions a film in passing), short reviews are usable as long as it's from a reliable source. In the case of the TP thing, it looks like it's meant to be a review of sorts for the music. Not the best source out there, but it looks to be usable offhand. A little searching does show that the band was on the Crow soundtrack, which did make the Billboard lists at one point, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• We have an article on Trouser Press if you'd like to learn about it. The content on the website is the same as in the book The Trouser Press Record Guide and if you look more closely you'll see that the last two paragraphs are about this band. GBooks only shows the first line of the Option piece about the band so I don't know how you dismiss it. No evidence yet that you've looked in print sources from the time the band was around. The entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music alone should be sufficient, but I guess you're going to keep arguing for deletion until someone closes this. I won't waste any more of my time here. --Michig (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• The notability of the publications is not the question, it's whether they have a substantial amount of information about this subject. They don't. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.