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. Wizardman 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This band appears to fail WP:BAND and the GNG. Bongomatic 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources somewhat after the time of nomination (in this version) were:
Sonicbids: Appears to be a booking site for bands to get gigs. Promotional by definition. Text probably provided by the subject. Not significant coverage, not RS, not independent.
smnnews.com: Non-RS, appears to be copypaste from press release. Not significant coverage, not RS, not independent.
The West-Georgian: Local, college newspaper. College newspapers have never been accepted as establishing notability. Not RS (for notability purposes).
mtv.com: references limited to name of band and song—zero descriptive information about band or its works. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition).
mtv.com: references limited to name of band and song—zero descriptive information about band or its works. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition).
imdb.com: one sentence of user-generated content (in full, "The episode is named after a song by Kenotia."). imdb has never been considered to establish notability, even of films covered comprehensively. No significant coverage, not RS.
allmusic.com (not included in artcile): directory entry without any biography entry at all—moreover, allmusic biographies have never been considered to establish notability. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition, not RS.
Update. A few new "sources" have been added. Two are directory entries (Billboard and iTunes). Another is a one sentence promotional blurb (neither for the band nor the director) indicating that a graduate of Musicians Institute directed one of the band's videos. No significant coverage in reliable sources still. Bongomatic 04:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:BAND threshold is two albums; Kenotia has released one. Also, I have questions about the reliability of AbsolutePunk as a source, since it's unclear how they report news. If AbsolutePunk were to be demonstrated to have a strong editorial/review policy for content, I would change to a weak keep. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Item 5 of the indications that a band may be notable: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Article meets WP:GNG which is the prime standard for notability! See refs. 217.238.232.86 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me as a wrong nomination for AFD. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. See WP:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination PCgo (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did not understand why this article was nominated for deletion. The sources in the article are reliable, the band appeared in MTV many times and they have a profile in Allmusic, not included in the article. So, why this article was nomited for deletion? Can someone answer me? Victor Silveira (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the discussion below, I re-read the article and the sources. Maybe C.Fred and Hairhorn are rights. There are much more infomation in the article than in the sources. So, I'll change my vote to Neutral, because I'm still not convinced this band is non-notable. Since it appeared in MTV, I think there are some TV programs about the group. But, since such sources are not easy to find and I couldn't find any other reliable source in the web, I shall leave the discussion. Thank you! Victor Silveira (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources providing non-trivial coverage do you consider qualifying as WP:RS? Allmusic is a directory—inclusion there is not an indicator of notability. Bongomatic 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thewestgeorgian.com - Newspaper of the University of West Georgia isn't reliable? They have an editorial oversight. www.mtv.com - Isn't reliable too? They have an editorial oversight. www.allmusic.com is a reliable source! Should be included in this article. Editorial Content: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html They have an editorial oversight; So whats your problem? All reliable sources according to WP:RS and WP:V. PCgo (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PCgo is right! All these sources have editorial oversight and give notability to the group. They satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. There is no problem with them. Victor Silveira (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you rework the article to show that the bulk of the article is supported by them? Right now, all they source are the fringes of the article (intro, infobox); the bulk of the article is sourced to AbsolutePunk. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred, I don't see any problem in the article be sourced to AbsolutePunk. It is a forum with editorial oversight, which is acceptable by Wikipedia. Well... I can try to rework it later. Actually, I'm a little busy. Victor Silveira (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned on a forum isn't evidence of notability. Neither is an article in a student paper. Hairhorn (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. Please, pay attention to the discussion. Victor Silveira (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The discussion about whether these sources are reliable is moot, because the coverage isn't significant enough to establish notability. This coverage is trivial. Hairhorn (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Hairhorn... Now, I understand what you said. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Victor Silveira (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are trying to re-invent the wheel, Hairhorn? Qoute: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". All mentioned sources do have editorial oversight so they are RS! We do not need a new defination what "Reliable sources" are. See WP:RS PCgo (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get bogged down in this, but you and I aren't riding the same wheel. There's a huge difference between saying, as WP:RS does, that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", and what you seem to be saying, something like "if it has editorial oversight, then it's reliable". One thing does not imply the other. WP:RS also explicitly says "Internet forum postings [...] are largely not acceptable." Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that section is called "self published and questionable sources". But again, this is all a red herring: it hardly matters whether or not absolutepunk or a student paper or an MTV listing are reliable, because they're all trivial. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really a non-notable band as I saw only trivial coverage.--Cannibaloki 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:49, 20 December 2009 (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.