Talk:Low Roar

Untitled

I'll fix and add more info soon. Yet, about the genre- I think it's more dream pop/folk than a very wide-ranged title "Alternative" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh123456 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Un-merging from Audrye Sessions' page

In my opinion, the band has gotten enough of a reputation since 2014 that they deserve their own article instead of being merged Audrye Sessions. The Audrye Sessions page barely even goes into detail about the band, the pages for their albums have more information in them. Does anybody else think it's time to give them their own page now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.174.17 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to recreate this article

Low Roar might not have been independently notable the last time around. But I'm pretty sure they are now. They have a couple albums out and have toured the US and EU. Here are some references that might help for recreating the article:

• May 2017, interview about third album: https://www.axs.com/interview-low-roar-s-ryan-karazija-reveals-it-s-not-all-about-iceland-118042
• November 2011, interview about first album: http://www.bestnewbands.com/interviews/10-questions-with-ryan-karazija-of-low-roar/
• May 2017, article about third album and supporting tour: http://www.vanyaland.com/2017/05/15/twice-in-a-long-long-while-icelands-low-roar-embodies-the-good-kind-of-frigid/
• March 2017, article previewing third album and supporting tour: http://www.stereogum.com/1931220/low-roar-waiting-10-years/premiere/
• April 2017, review of third album: http://www.themanitoban.com/2017/04/low-roar-long-long-55/31422/
• December 2016, article about a video game for which Low Roar did the music: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/hideo-kojima-death-stranding-norman-reedus-low-roar-w456764

85.144.182.132 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Low Roar should get a separate article

I agree with the comments above. An active band with >75,000 Facebook fans and several million plays on Spotify should definitely have their own page and not redirect to an old and outdated project that had some personal overlap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwodrei (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Renamed page to Low Roar

In light of the discussions on both pages, I've pointed Audrye Sessions to Low Roar, and moved the content of the former to the latter. Low Roar has far surpassed Audrye Sessions' notability. I think the eventual best course of action, though, would be to separate the pages. Zera555 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Audrye Sessions which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I completed this split today. For further comments see Talk:Audrye Sessions#Splitting is done.---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Death Stranding and Low Roar's popularity

I think this article is worth mentioning how Kojima licensing their music picked them back from the edge of failure

https://www.vg247.com/2020/01/06/sony-wouldnt-even-tell-low-roar-music-death-stranding/ 194.79.209.94 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! I've now mentioned it in the article. Thanks. Moozipan Cheese (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of House in the Woods (album) into Low Roar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge House in the Woods (album) into Low Roar, for lack of independent notability and context. Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Coverage is very limited so far, and entirely from sources with unconfirmed reliability. What's here could easily fit in one or two paragraphs on the band's page for now, with an option to restore the article with more reliable coverage in the future. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

While I agree more reliable coverage will come with time, it seems fitting to have a dedicated page for this album as there are for the rest of their albums. Track listing and personnel information wouldn't be fitting on the main Low Roar article, and merging it now only to restore it later on would feel redundant. Additionally, binaural.es has been used in other Wikipedia articles to cover news on music, and as more information comes out for the album, in the very near future at that, more than enough coverage will make its way onto this page. MasonJSO (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Notified: WikiProject Albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge basic information (e.g., the album's anticipated release date and context regarding the vocalist's death), move this version to draftspace, and create a redirect to the band page. This article should be restored when it has been reviewed in three reliable, independent sources per the notability guideline for albums. The existence of other articles is not relevant to the notability of this article. Additionally, for a topic to be notable, there must be existing sources, not the assumption that those sources will eventually exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I also support draftification and everything else voorts says here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion is redundant, now that that the album is released and the article improved. I therefore suggest that this discussion be closed. Klbrain (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but after looking at the article again, I'm even less convinced now. If that's all the sources that have been gathered since the album's been out for over two months, I would think it must be non-notable. The coverage is still very limited, and if the only available review is from Sputnikmusic (which I have always found deeply questionable despite its status among music Wikipedia editors), I don't see why it should have its own article. If this discussion were closed, I would probably still consider launching an AfD in a few months anyway, assuming nobody else gets to it first. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic's review is notable, and there are additional sources that have improved this article. MasonJSO (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

One review is not sufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not the only review. MasonJSO (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok what are the other reviews? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You can view the sources. MasonJSO (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Even if this is notable (which is questionable), it makes more sense to cover them together given how little information there is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• LowroarRyan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Reconsidering "House in the Woods" article creation

@Klbrain: @QuietHere: @MasonJSO: @Voorts:

As noted above, there was a lengthy discussion about delaying a dedicated article for House in the Woods until additional coverage (such as a full album review) appears. At the moment, that discussion doesn’t seem to have produced a clear outcome or path forward.

I want to emphasize - strongly - that the current treatment feels inadequate. House in the Woods was Ryan’s final project before his death, and presenting it as a bolted-on block of text within the main Low Roar article gives the impression that this work is being handled as an afterthought rather than as a notable subject in its own right.

For many readers, Wikipedia remains the most accessible and widely consulted reference point for understanding Ryan’s music and legacy. When someone visits the article and sees this information appended as a section - rather than developed as a standalone page - it can come across as dismissive and oddly disproportionate to the significance of the release.

I’m asking that we urgently revisit whether a separate article can and should be created now, even if it begins as a short, properly sourced stub that can be expanded as coverage grows. If the concern is notability or sourcing, I’d appreciate a concrete proposal for what specific sources would be sufficient, and how we can work collaboratively to gather and incorporate them - rather than leaving the material in an improvised state indefinitely.

If this cannot be resolved promptly, I will contact Ryan’s family. And if that happens, I think we should be prepared to explain - clearly and respectfully - why his final work is being commemorated on Wikipedia as a grafted section instead of a dedicated article.

This is about ensuring Ryan’s last work is documented with the clarity and dignity readers expect from Wikipedia - especially given how many people will come looking for information about that final release. Qfwfq's Qwerty (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and memorials can be placed on sites dedicated for that purpose. It's a site for neutral point of view, including criticism. I don't think, therefore, that Wikipedia can or should serve the purpose you're aiming for. Klbrain (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

What would make the project notable is a collection of independent, reliable sources discussing it. That's what the above discussion centered around. Nothing more to explain than that Wikipedia policies should be applied equally to all articles, and that while the circumstances of this particular subject are unfortunate, that alone does not make for an exemption. "The clarity and dignity readers expect from Wikipedia" cannot be achieved without proper sourcing; otherwise, you'd be making a page full of unsourced material tagged with {{citation needed}}, and readers know exactly what that means. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what my colleagues have said, you should definitely not contact Ryan's family over a Wikipedia article. That is weird and creepy. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)