This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Burgz33 (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 31 January 2007 (→Note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:24, 31 January 2007 by Burgz33 (talk | contribs) (→Note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Deleted and restored
This was deleted as an a7, which is very obviously inappropriate. Then it was deleted as a repost, but since there was never a legitimate reason for deletion, I see no value in deleting it as a repost. Maybe people are thinking "A myspace band? You must be kidding!" but let's look at who the members are. It's not a stretch to call this a rap supergroup and there are some legit-looking sources on the net. So, I've restored this for now, and IMO any questions as to the suitability of this content should be decided via AFD, not speedy deletion. Friday (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- This artice is not reliably sourced in any way. There is simply a link to the group's MySpace account. Right now it falls well short of WP:V.--Isotope23 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
its not "simply a link to the group's MySpace account" - its the groups official site where they publish press releases, news, songs, photographs and general info. is that not enough? thats more one can tell of other groups, and yet their articles are not being deleted, or called "unverified" or whatever. --who-am-i 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well sure, this article is obviously very immature right now. Our ability to properly source this will only improve over time. One problem is that there's so much myspace-type chatter that the good sources are lost in a sea of crap. The closest thing to a proper source I've spotted so far is but it's of limited usefulness- it just mentions this band popping into someone else's show. I see no reason to doubt that this band is real, but sure, we need sources. Friday (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No, it's not enough. MySpace cannot be considted a reliable source. If you see other band pages that only reference their MySpace account, I would say they are good candidates for an "unverfied" tag. I'm not trying to get this page deleted, but it needs some reliable external sourcing outside of just a MySpace account (even if it is their official site) before this tag is removed. Has Allmusic or any other music related site covered them?--Isotope23 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
All prior incidents aside, if we can't find reliable or third-party sourcing for this article at some point in the near future, I plan to bring it to AfD for consideration. I figure this is fair notice. Luna Santin 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Deletion is not a way to find sources. I don't get it- why would deletion even be an option on the table for a band that so obviously meets the music guidelines? Sources will improve over time. Friday (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Suffice to say we have a disagreement of opinion. In my view, the lack of sourcing indicates a lack of notability (which I'm still not really convinced we have, here) -- but we should probably save this for AfD, if it happens. Luna Santin 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Myspace and websites
A band's own website can be used for information about them. Just because that website happens to be myspace shouldn't change anything. Does anyone object to the myspace link going back in? (I know, it sounds crazy suggesting a myspace link, but this is how this band has chosen to market themselves.) Friday (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the myspace link as a problem. If it's their homepage, then it's their homepage. Luna Santin 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't object to the link being in the article, I just don't think that having a link to their own site, be it MySpace or not, is sufficient to satisfy WP:V. Having the link in the article is fine but the tag should stay up until at least one reliable source external to the band is added.--Isotope23 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- No objections there- we absolutely need third-party confirmation to legitimize the article. Friday (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Note
The article was nominated for deletion; the result of the discussion was to merge it to House of Pain. >Radiant< 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- once again for those who may have missed it: house of pain is history; la coka nostra is future. easy as that. la coka nostra is NOT a house of pain reunion "plus some other guy" - it is a whole new group. --87.186.15.249 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per the AFD, this page has been merged into the HoP article and redirected.--Brian(view my history)/ 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
La Coka Nostra was recently on the White Rapper Show on Vh1, does this not validate them as a group yet? You guys are morons. ---Burgz33 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)