Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROMES (band)

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 no consensus. After two consecutive relists, there has been no further discussion and having a third relist wouldn't have any effect in my opinion: closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ROMES (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a band who only just released their debut EP two weeks ago, and who have not yet passed WP:NMUSIC for anything nor garnered enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Our notability criteria for bands do not include "a famous musician tweeted about them", performing on a podcast does not satisfy the live performance criteria (especially if the only source for that performance is the podcasters' own self-published website about their own podcast, rather than media coverage of the performance), and the referencing here is 60 per cent primary sources and 40 per cent blurbs that aren't substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for RS. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which a band is entitled to have an article as soon as they can be verified as existing; it's an encyclopedia, on which certain standards of notability and sourceability have to be met for a band to earn an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger notability claim and better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band should meet the WP:NMUSIC guidelines as (1) Their music was licensed by TNT for a national broadcast in the U.S; (2) One of their EP songs has been added to rotation on CBC radio. Also, there are multiple references in this article from notable published sources including The Guardian and Vice Magazine. unsigned comment added by Jord.sheehy (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Track licensing for a television program counts toward notability if it can be reliably sourced to media coverage — it does not count toward notability if you have to depend on a Facebook post to "source" it, as social media posts are never valid or reliable sourcing for Wikipedia content. Similarly, the claim that they were playlisted by Sonica is not referenced to any media coverage which verifies that they were playlisted by Sonica; it's "referenced" to the "songs played within the last week" scroll on a standalone non-networked radio station that is not Sonica, and thus fails to even verify the claim being sourced to it. (2) As I already noted in the original nomination statement, both the Guardian and Vice references are blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry a band over NMUSIC or GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing.

NMUSIC cannot be passed by just asserting passage of an NMUSIC criterion — the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to verify and support the accuracy of the claim is what determines whether the band gets over NMUSIC or not. And exactly none of the sourcing here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my searches come up with nothing, and note that User:Jord.sheehy created this article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I simply found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least moved to draft. The band has already received decent coverage from The Guardian, Vice, and Allmusic. More coverage is almost certain to follow. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Actually, it seems this is basically the same band as Nightbox, a clearly notable band. At worst it should be merged there. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and Vice links you provided there are the same two references I already addressed above: they're blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. Not because of where they are, but because of how long they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2016 (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.