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. (non-admin closure) Nagol0929 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.N.P.O.C. (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

To quote my PROD which was just removed:

Appears to have received no reliable coverage beyond that Uncut review. Has an AllMusic bio but it's uncredited, and the same text appears on Spotify and Apple Music so that may have been written by someone at Domino Recording Company. I'm not seeing notability here.

Same argument still applies. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've never heard of them, but the article meets WP:BAND #5, "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The article states that two albums were released on Domino Recording Company, whose article has a ton of blue links suggesting that some of their signed artists are notable. The current reference could be improved to an independent, reliable source, but unless that's completely made up, I land on the keep side. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Domino Recording Company is indeed a notable label, but also one which has signed many artists over the years and not all of them are automatically notable just for meeting that single criteria. Do keep in mind that, like with other SNGs, NBAND does say that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria," not that they definitely are from just the one. If you ask me, NBAND#5 alone should never be a reason to keep a page, and this is no exception. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Two releases on Domino would be enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC, and it is not necessary for the band to also meet other notability criteria to qualify. However, the group really only has one full-length release on Domino, which is Fifth Column; the live album is a limited-edition release that's the length of an EP and was never put on sale generally or reviewed critically. ([1]) The AMG source is reliable (it doesn't need to be a signed review) and the Uncut review is, too; a couple more reviews (perhaps in paper rags?) and I'd bump up to a solid keep. Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but the AllMusic page 1. is a bio, not a review, and 2. has evidence that it wasn't written by an AllMusic writer due to appearing in other places. Just because AllMusic hosts it doesn't give it an automatic pass; after all, they host all sorts of confirmed user-generated stuff that we don't use. It could perhaps be useful as a primary source, but I reject the notion that it counts toward notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An AllMusic biography is not unreliable merely for not being a review; both the biographical summaries and the reviews can be used as independent sources. If it appears elsewhere, it's just as likely it was cribbed from Allmusic as the converse; indeed, many a Wikipedia music biography has been copied and pasted from Allmusic. If we have reason to believe this is spon-con of some sort, I'd withdraw, but I don't see the need for native suspicion of the content. Chubbles (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said AM bios were unreliable. I never even said this one is. I just said that I have my suspicions and I don't think it's safe enough to clearly provide notability. And even if it did, that would leave us with two good sources which still isn't much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bumped up to keep based on added sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2023 (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.