- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- JoyFocus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not nominating this page for deletion. There is difference of opinion regarding notability of this page with me and Inks.LWC. I believe JoyFocus has sufficient coverage which proves the notability of the band while Inks.LWC is of the opinion that the band is not notable. Apart from the references mentioned in the page, I've mentioned many of the citations for JoyFocus on its talk page which satisfy WP:GNG. I think a wider consensus is needed for deciding whether the page should be deleted or not. Note: I have WP:COI with this page. Mr RD ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND; there is only one arguably reliable source that has covered the band , and the band fails the other notability criteria of WP:BAND. Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - So the person nominating for deletion is the one who actually wants to keep the page? Makes no sense. If @ Inks.LWC ( talk · contribs) feels it is not notable, that user should have taken it to AfD. I see the band has coverage, but nothing major. Has the group been placed in regular rotation on the radio or any other criteria listed in WP:BAND? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - The user who started the AFD is the author (it is also worth disclosing here that the author was paid to write the article). I PRODed the article, and he removed the PROD tag and took it here (before I had the chance to take it to AFD; had he removed it and not took it directly here, I would have done so). But to answer your substantive question, no, the group does not meet any of the WP:BAND criteria, as I noted in my PROD tag. Inks.LWC ( talk) 04:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, because of a lack of reliable sources discussing the band. 38.95.109.36 ( talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. How to measure a band's notability when all the major websites related to this field are regarded as "not reliable" by Wikipedia? It is also worth mentioning that most of the band and artist pages (I'm not talking about big artists) existing here do not meet its notability criterion. The page was prodded just because I chose to disclose my affiliation and now the other editors are continuously Prodding all my contributions, even those for which I have no reservations. I want to improve Wikipedia and make it a better information place but seems like all people have got time for is how to drag someone behind. Doesn't this seem unfair?
Mr RD (
talk)
16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If other articles exist that do not meet the notability criterion, they should be put up for deletion ( WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD); this article should not exist simply because other non-notable articles exist. If you see other non-notable articles, you should put them up for speedy deletion, PROD, or AFD; if you are not comfortable doing so, feel free to post them on my talk page and I will. But that doesn't have any bearing on the notability of this article and shouldn't be a factor in the discussion. Inks.LWC ( talk) 22:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot seem to find anything of theirs that charted, or any major music publications mentioning them at all. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 05:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Wait, would
this count as a respected-enough critical review? I don't know the music genre well enough to say, but there seem to be other pages on here that link to soundlooks.com. --
Prosperosity (
talk)
06:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Probably not. The review was written by the administrator of Soundlooks, which appears to be an online music journal run by two people. The author/administrator is a freelance DJ and self-proclaimed "music opinionist", but I was unable to find any of her work published by a reliable third-party publication; I wasn't able to find out anything about the site's "Chief Support Writer". The article appears to be a standard example of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Inks.LWC ( talk) 06:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NBAND, references are blogs, and sales outlets. The Allmusic ref has an image of a disc but no review. Article is a promotional advert. Kraxler ( talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- JoyFocus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not nominating this page for deletion. There is difference of opinion regarding notability of this page with me and Inks.LWC. I believe JoyFocus has sufficient coverage which proves the notability of the band while Inks.LWC is of the opinion that the band is not notable. Apart from the references mentioned in the page, I've mentioned many of the citations for JoyFocus on its talk page which satisfy WP:GNG. I think a wider consensus is needed for deciding whether the page should be deleted or not. Note: I have WP:COI with this page. Mr RD ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND; there is only one arguably reliable source that has covered the band , and the band fails the other notability criteria of WP:BAND. Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - So the person nominating for deletion is the one who actually wants to keep the page? Makes no sense. If @ Inks.LWC ( talk · contribs) feels it is not notable, that user should have taken it to AfD. I see the band has coverage, but nothing major. Has the group been placed in regular rotation on the radio or any other criteria listed in WP:BAND? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - The user who started the AFD is the author (it is also worth disclosing here that the author was paid to write the article). I PRODed the article, and he removed the PROD tag and took it here (before I had the chance to take it to AFD; had he removed it and not took it directly here, I would have done so). But to answer your substantive question, no, the group does not meet any of the WP:BAND criteria, as I noted in my PROD tag. Inks.LWC ( talk) 04:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, because of a lack of reliable sources discussing the band. 38.95.109.36 ( talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. How to measure a band's notability when all the major websites related to this field are regarded as "not reliable" by Wikipedia? It is also worth mentioning that most of the band and artist pages (I'm not talking about big artists) existing here do not meet its notability criterion. The page was prodded just because I chose to disclose my affiliation and now the other editors are continuously Prodding all my contributions, even those for which I have no reservations. I want to improve Wikipedia and make it a better information place but seems like all people have got time for is how to drag someone behind. Doesn't this seem unfair?
Mr RD (
talk)
16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If other articles exist that do not meet the notability criterion, they should be put up for deletion ( WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD); this article should not exist simply because other non-notable articles exist. If you see other non-notable articles, you should put them up for speedy deletion, PROD, or AFD; if you are not comfortable doing so, feel free to post them on my talk page and I will. But that doesn't have any bearing on the notability of this article and shouldn't be a factor in the discussion. Inks.LWC ( talk) 22:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot seem to find anything of theirs that charted, or any major music publications mentioning them at all. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 05:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Wait, would
this count as a respected-enough critical review? I don't know the music genre well enough to say, but there seem to be other pages on here that link to soundlooks.com. --
Prosperosity (
talk)
06:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Probably not. The review was written by the administrator of Soundlooks, which appears to be an online music journal run by two people. The author/administrator is a freelance DJ and self-proclaimed "music opinionist", but I was unable to find any of her work published by a reliable third-party publication; I wasn't able to find out anything about the site's "Chief Support Writer". The article appears to be a standard example of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Inks.LWC ( talk) 06:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NBAND, references are blogs, and sales outlets. The Allmusic ref has an image of a disc but no review. Article is a promotional advert. Kraxler ( talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.