Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knapsack (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 the whole shebang. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knapsack (band)

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

This was nominated way back in 2005 and the discussion closed as keep. I'm not really sure why. I think we'll benefit from casting our eyes to the notability of this band again, as I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. They have allmusic write-ups for their albums, but that's not a guarantee of notability any more, and I'm not seeing much coverage elsewhere. Happy to withdraw if sources are provided, but at the moment recommending delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following albums by the band:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fail either notability criteria for bands or albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and merge albums Searches like [1] indicate coverage for the band's former members, as well as a Knapsack video hosted on the MTV site [2]. There is a little news coverage that mentions the band, but mostly in terms of the newer projects the members have taken on. [3]. I suspect there is actually more coverage out there that is difficult to find using a computer because of the band having a common word as a name. All in all this is a borderline case, but I would lean slightly toward keep. The likely notability of the members combined with the common name, the MTV coverage, and the fact that this band was popular before the internet really took off make me want to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the album articles, if the band article is kept, they should be merged to the band article. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The allmusic coverage is fine, plus Google Books throws up coverage in CMJ New Music Monthly (this one more about the singer's later band) and Les Inrockuptibles, GNews returns the LA Times referring to them as 'indie faves', coverage in The Morning Call ([4]), and according to MTV the band "was at the forefront of the '90s post-punk movement" ([5]). See also this SF Weekly article. Plus 3 albums on Alias Records.--Michig (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2010 (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.