Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette

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. Consensus is that the sources added by 4meter4 establish the band's notability. Sandstein 06:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lee's Corvette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unref article. Lots of (quite promotional) claims of notability, but nothing verified, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, speedy close, and trout the nominator harshly. Mary Lee's Corvette is a prominent Americana band which has received extensive critical attentionj. It's been covered at varying lengths by publications ranging from the NY Times, Washington Post, and the New Yorker in the general press to Uncut, No Depression, Billboard, and Rolling Stone in the music press. The nominator's insistence that citing favorable critical commentary is somehow "quite promotional" is ridiculous. There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination, the notion that female performers aren't generally notable with tabloidish coverage of their romantic/sex lives, butt- and breast-baring photography and other forms of exhibitionistic behavior, and various modes of embarrassing or self-destructive public behaviour. Just making critically praised music isn't enough for a woman. And even if I'd never heard of Mary Lee Kortes before this discussion, it would be the work of thirty seconds or so to review cursory Google search results and see that sufficient coverage apparently exists to support an article. This nomination is an example of the sort of careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This band may or may not be notable based on critical attention, but none of that critical attention is properly cited in this article. In fact, none of the band members other than the leader, Mary Lee Kortes, are mentioned by name. There are no proper citations at all, just two external links, to the band website and to an Allmusic page. "Trouting" of the nominator is not appropriate because the article really does have problems that need to be addressed if the article is to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Trouting the nominator is perfectly appropriate because it's evident they didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search. There is no case that the subject is not notable. No case whatever. Sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Admin comment: I have struck this and the above comment by this user as personal attacks, and blocked the user for violation of their civility editing restriction. Sandstein 21:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. While it's unfortunate Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was not more civil in expressing his concerns, I concur with the underlying criticism of the nomination. Boleyn has been nominating dozens of articles for deletion that have been tagged for notability since 2008 and 2009 in rapid succession with not enough time between nominations to indicate time was spent researching these topics. I've been able to locate quality RS for many of them just doing a cursory WP:BEFORE search in google books and news; which indicates to me that many of these nominations were not made following the BEFORE guideline at AFD. @ Metropolitan90 Your deletion comments about the poor quality of the article are not policy based reasons for deletion because AFD is not cleanup. This article is in horrible shape and needs re-writing, but we have enough sources to pass both GNG and WP:MUSICBIO so there is not a strong policy based rationale to delete.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Off-topic question: @Sandstein: The last block was six months, and it literally expired a month ago. While blocks aren't punitive, if this user isn't getting the memo, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • RandomCanadian, I think that the conduct of users should not be discussed in an AfD, but in other appropriate fora. Sandstein 12:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Article's subject does not seem notable to me (article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG).--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The press section of the subject's website's cites quotes from multiple RS sources. If these can be directly sourced the article can be saved. I doubt I have the time or motivation to do it myself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:PROBLEM, WP:TROUT, and related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. For about the millionth time, inclusion is based on whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is good. Metropolitan90 got it absolutely right when they said, "the article really does have problems that need to be addressed". Problems indeed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another WP:DRIVEBY as explained above. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two best sources cited, The New Yorker and Billboard, do mention this band but don't support the statements they are being cited to support. The New Yorker item [1] is only two sentences long and says nothing about the band recording an EP titled Mary Lee's Corvette, in 1997, produced by Mary Lee Kortes's husband Eric Ambel, the claim it is being cited for. The Billboard item (Billboard actually mentions the band in two different articles that start on the same page, here) is being cited to support the claim that "MLC's breakthrough recording was of a live performance of the Bob Dylan album, Blood on the Tracks. The album attracted attention from many quarters, not least Dylan himself, for whom MLC later opened in New York." The big problem is that the live version of Blood on the Tracks was not recorded until 2001 and released in 2002 -- while the Billboard citation is from 1997, four or five years before the relevant events took place. That leaves only two proper references, one being a blog and the other being an article on the band's record company's own website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my recommendation in light of the fact that more sources have been added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are incredibly easy to find to pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done. Lastly, just because sources were improperly used by a contributor doesn't mean that we delete. Fix the article through editing not deleting. See the list below of significant in-depth independent RS; notably album or single reviews written by Geoffrey Himes, Mike Joyce, Chuck Taylor, and Shawnee Smith among others.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Himes, Geoffrey (23 April 1999). "MARY LEE'S CORVETTE: "True Lovers of Adventure"". The Washington Post. p. 19.
• Joyce, Mike (11 July 2003). "MARY LEE'S CORVETTE: "700 Miles"". The Washington Post. p. H7.
• Smith, Shawnee (February 15, 1997). "Artists & Music: Mary Lee's Corvette Is Ripe & Ready". Billboard. 109 (7): 10, 82.
• Bessman, Jim (March 6, 1999). "Artists & Music: Mary Lee's Corvette Revs Up With Wild Pitch Set". Billboard. 111 (10): 11, 112.
• Reece, Doug (April 5, 1997). "POPULAR UPRISINGS". Billboard. 109 (14): 16.
• PAUL VERNA, ed. (February 8, 1997). "Reviews & Previews: ALBUMS". Billboard. 109 (5): 62.
• Paoletta, Michael (December 25, 1999). "1999 the Year In Music: THE CRITIC's CHOICE'". Billboard. 111 (52).
• Verna, Paul (October 25, 1997). "THE SURPRISING NEW SOUNDS OF NEW YORK CITY". Billboard. 109 (43): 1, 90-92.
• Chuck Taylor, ed. (June 5, 1999). "Reviews & Previews: SINGLES". Billboard. 111 (23): 20.
• Joshua Clover (April 1, 1999). "The Shredder". Spin. 15 (4): 167.

• Comment. I have either removed unsourced content or sourced content that was previously unsourced. I have added quality independent and in-depth sources. The article is now in much better shape than it was.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 4meter4, and other coverage in USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, The Morning Call, Wisconsin State Journal, News Sentinel, The Record, The Philadelphia Inquirer, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came here because Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was making personal attacks against me in several places so I was watching their edits and discovered they were blocked (is six months long enough?) but as a music project editor, I thought I'd check this too. I assumed I was on the right t rack when I found the AllMusic bio https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mary-lees-corvette-mn0000377664/biography and three reviews, https://www.allmusic.com/album/true-lovers-of-adventure-mw0000664068, https://www.allmusic.com/album/blood-on-the-tracks-recorded-live-at-arlene-grocery-mw0000222065, and https://www.allmusic.com/album/700-miles-mw0000019335. That pushes me over WP:GNG. The sources that 4meter4 and others have found make it clear the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are plenty of sources now that prove WP:GNG. Thanks 4meter4 for improving the article! FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Commendations to 4meter4 for improving the article dramatically. I encourage the nominator to follow the wise advice at WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 15 September 2021 (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.