Natural Information Society

Natural Information Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable music ensemble which does not have WP:SIGCOV significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:RS. Sources include brief mentions but no in depth coverage. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Though it has been significantly edited since the opening of the nomination, I believe a review of this version supports it as an article independent from Joshua Abrams on the basis of dedicated coverage by Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Musicworks, Pitchfork, etc., with more incidental coverage in Spin, The Observer, etc.
  The article also used to note a few other items that help establish suitability, but that have since been deleted [1] from the version live of this timestamp; for instance, it used to note that "In 2017, the group was described by NPR as a "staple" of the underground music scene in Chicago". In other cases, uncited information has been added [2] seemingly for the purpose of tagging it "uncited" [3]. In still other cases, sources that help establish notability like Time Inc.'s Uncut have been removed as "unreliable" [4]. A "unreliable sources" tag was added to the top of the page with the edit summary "many sources are unreliable" [5]; at the time the tag was added, the only sources used in the article were: Pitchfork, The Observer, The Guardian, Musicworks, Rolling Stone, the University of Chicago, The Stranger, and Spin. I would respectfully encourage editors, therefore, to review the earlier version of the article (linked above) before indicating their Keep/Delete preference. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment "uncut" reference was removed because it is a BLOG. Blogs are always considered unreliable and cannot be used as references in articles. Please see WP:RS.

Blogs can especially not ne used to source information or text in a WP:BLP article bout any living person. Speaking of BLP violations, how did you promote and publish the draft through the AFC process, while it contained all those BLP violations? O, the draft pushed to the main space with "copyright violations"? I see you hurried made an edit, and hopefully fixed that. I am just not getting it, plus the other night, when the same thing happened with another draft you pushed to main with copyright violations, that were caught an hour later by a different editor. Yay him! Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nominator. 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)