Talk:Lotus (American band)

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

All links show the validty of the band. Notable album reviews from respected industry magazines. Links to websites that have commented on the band. Band is well noted in music community. Again the links show the previous noterity of the band Lotus.

Bkado (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The band has been featured in numerus notable magazines as well and charted on iTunes. Bkado (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I accidentally removed the speedy deletion tag. But it has been replaced by Wikipedia. Bkado (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why this is again marked for deletion. There are many references to notable, respected, established magazines talking abou the band in detail. Noterity is established through solid, 3rd party references and this artcile has plenty of them. Bkado (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should all those soutrces be incorporated or are those to show editors the notbality of the band? Thanks for the help! Bkado (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the sources found can be used to verify information within the article, they should be added as references. Some may contain additional information that could be added to the article, and should then be used a sreferences for such information. Others may be added as external links if they provide sufficient information that might be useful to the reader and that is not already included within the article. I don't think they will all need to be added by any means.--Michig (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I removed the PROD tag for now only because you were working on it, but the article is lacking in sufficient 3rd party references. Keep in mind, the number of references is not more important than the quality. Who is the label? Why is the only award a redlink? Did you read the policy WP:MUSIC? Having a bunch of albums is meaningless if they aren't on a major label, or unless you can prove that they were notable if not. (anyone can theoretically "release an album" for about $120). It needs to establish notability via the music policy very quickly, like all other articles. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Fan-like language, like "known for live shows, a complex light set up and grassroots approach to the music industry," is not helping. We need a neutral point of view here. And why are the cites so poorly formatted? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Both of which can be fixed. You might both like to consider pointing out our notability criteria to the article's author before trying to get it deleted. If it can be improved to a state where it satisfies WP:N and WP:V then it shouldn't be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I trimmed the tags down. The sources below appear to indicate they are notable, and at the very least, notable enough to escape a PROD or SD, and very likely AFD. I would request we just give it a couple of days and be careful not to WP:BITE the newcomer. Sorry Bkado, we editors get a bit zealous sometimes. It still needs improvement, but the links below should help. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • At this time, I am going to ask for an outside opinion from Hammer (who I disagree with often enough, but respect). Its been long enough to develop basic notability. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 16:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article needs better sources. The following links might provide useful material and sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for the article to meet notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

and these: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].--Michig (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

and this: [19]--Michig (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As to what sources and how, the best rule of thumb is to add a source if it proves a claim. If you say they released an album, use a source of a review to prove that. If you make a claim of any kind, use a source. An example is where you say "Lotus is known for concerts in which a complex light set up ...". You really can't use the sentence unless you have a source that is basically saying the same thing, or it is original research. Same thing with "Artists like Trans Am, Tortoise and Beck have influenced Lotus". If there isn't a source stating this, then it is YOUR research (or opinion) that is the basis for it, thus it is original research, which isn't allowed. Wikipedia's job is solely to document facts that can be verified by multiple reliable sources. Nothing more, nothing less. We are not reporters, and our opinions do not belong in articles. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again - Not sure why this is marked for deletion. There are many references to notable, respected, established magazines talking abou the band in detail. Noterity is established through solid, 3rd party references and this artcile has plenty of them. This kind of crazy - the sources are there and statements are backed up. There are 1000s of other pages on here w/ less solid sources, less notable subjects. There is ABSOLUTLY no reason for this article to be considered for deletion. Bkado (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• The place to bring it up is at the AFD itself. I removed the PROD tag before, and in good faith to the person who put the tag on the article, asked one of the more experienced and respected editors in music articles at Wikipedia for an opinion on it, TenPoundHammer. You can try to bring up the sources on this page with him at the afd. He is very reasonable guy, but he is fairly strict about policy. if you can show him why, according to the WP:MUSIC policy, that this band qualifies, he will listen. I suggest sticking to policy, not emotional appeal. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know they are giving the creator a lot of slack to work the article during the AFD, but I hope someone realizes that half these are blogs, and they can't stay. Yes, the Bkado blog stuff, and all the other blogs. They don't pass WP:RS or WP:LINKS. Please feel free to show me the guideline exception if there exists one. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Half of what are blogs? A few sources added as references, and some external links are blogs and should be removed. Most of the references are not blogs. And the creator is getting 5 days, like in every other AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No one is arguing against 5 days for the AFD, although many close early for cause. "Half" might have been an overestimate above, but the goal was to say something about the problem before someone just came through with an axe. I'm not ragging the creator, I'm trying to help by givings some fair warning about the blogs. There are circumstances where a blog source IS justified, if you notice, I was asking for justification in the event that the blog entry should stay. If you notice, I haven't voted in the AFD, so please don't mistake my efforts as negative. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article went from being under-sourced to over-sourced and as such the citations in this article need to be cleaned up per current Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For example, links to "official" websites such as for the band, publicist, label or individual members can be used to verify statements such as a release date of an album, track listing, name of an album, members of the band or a tour listing. They can not be used to establish notability. Likewise cited sources based on, or a reprint of, any of the above should not be used. Example of such articles are "Lotus releases new studio album, Hammerstrike, on October 14" from Homegrown News, "Jammy Awards Announce 7th Jammy Awards Nominations" from Guitar Player, "Farmapalooza 7: Big Land Grassroots Vibe" from Jam Base and "Lotus Will Tour In Support of ‘Hammerstrike’" from Big Shot Magazine.

As a more direct example of the above using a key "notability" claim from the parent article, which has been brought up as needing a citation:
Official myspace page band bio contains the following: Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots.

• "Lotus Bio" at Jam Base - "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus was a go-to act for late night festival slots this past summer, performing at ROTHBURY, Summerfest, Camp Bisco, and others."
• "Lotus blossoms with new CD" college newspaper article - "Armed with a massive light rig and five talented musicians who make their instruments scream and cry, Lotus is creating a genre all their own."
• "Event details: Lotus with BLVD - Hammerstrike Tour 2008" Eventful concert listing - "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots."
• "Lotus at Parkwest (Chicago)" from a Craigslist post - "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots."
• "Lotus House of Blues October 28, 2008" from Plugged In Cleveland contains "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a must see act."
• "LOTUS::Escaping Sargasso Sea" from the Green Arrow Radio blog - "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, this proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots."

(Most of those also contain a lot more material from it's original source as well, but as the comment in the article "Lotus is known for concerts in which a complex light set up is used" has been questioned it seemed a logical choice to use as an example) (EDIT - add on - I new see that the actual, verbatium. quote of "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots." has been put into the article with a citation leading to "Lotus Tours in Support of Live Album ESCAPING SARGASSO SEA, as "article" on Jam Base. It is more of the same as the other sources complete with "Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots." as part of the "article.)

Policy and guidelines also imply bootlegs of video or audio (Endorsed by the band or not) as questionable. An example of these types of link are "Lotus Live at Farmapalooza", "Lotus Live at Wakarusa Music and Camping Festival, Revival Tent on 2007-06-09 (June 9, 2007)" and Lotus Sonic Bloom - 6/20/2008. (There is an essay based on the reliable sources guidlines that includes a section called "Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?" that relates to this subject)

For overall policy and guidelines (Along with any notes that apply to them) that are important in the issue of external links, citations and notability editors should consult, but not only limited too, General notability guideline definitions; Criteria for musicians and ensembles, in particular criteria 1, "except"; No original research guidlines; Notability (people) guidelines, in particular "Basic criteria" and "Additional criteria - Any biography"; External links style guidlines, in particular the Links normally to be avoided sub section; and the Sources policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've done some tidying up - if you see any further statements that don't have a valid source, please point them out. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the "Notable live performances" section really adds anything to the article, other than lots of links to music download sites. If any of these performances are "notable", i.e. major festivals, etc., they could be mentioned in the text rather than listed. The band has, after all, played hundreds of gigs. Any objections to me doing this?--Michig (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree but only add them inline if there are citations to articles that state these were notable shows. Currently the citations given to establish these were "Notable live performances" are to advertisements, press releases and bootleg recordings. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since there have been no objections raised, I'm going to go ahead and tidy this up.--Michig (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article reads like an advertisement or a press release. 24.188.137.198 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't find a press release confirming this album; however, it is included in iTunes. If anyone finds additional information on the release, please update the page. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lotus (American band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108091349/http://www.relix.com/Features/Reviews/Lotus_200712062638.html to http://www.relix.com/Features/Reviews/Lotus_200712062638.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply