Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Version

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 Move to draft. This is a tough one. There clearly is not a consensus to keep this as is, but the participants are all over the place about what to do instead. A "no consensus" close defaults to keeping, which seems like an irrational result in the circumstances. So from the options proposed, I have gone with draftifying as the one most in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Version

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable music project. Could not find a single source to attest the project's notability. Of the two listed, one is not shown, and the other is an obscure Icelandic website that looks like a blog. PK650 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some plays, some fans and some coverage but seems to be only scratching the surface. Can't find much on them at all. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep as has English reliable sources coverage including an independent bio at AllMusic here and album review at AllMusic here, which normally is a good indicator that more coverage is available, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC) changed to weak keep as explained later Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a database akin to imdb, is it not? As such I don't think it can be anywhere near a reliable indicator of notability, as anyone can ask to be included in their database through their data provider TiVo. Could you provide any such sources? I could not find any of relevance. Best, PK650 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No AllMusic is a reliable source as listed in the reliable sources for Music listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, the bios are by staff writers and the album reviews by staff are independent. The bios and staff reviews are not user-edited and anyone can submit a story to any newspaper but most are not selected just like AllMusic which is more selective than people think as for example out of all the bands and musicians listed in this AFD category this is the only band with an allmusic bio and review that I have come across so far this week, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atlantic306: It is RS and there is no doubt that there are signed, but there is not much else. No coverage. You would expect something. No social media. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RSP, there is no consensus as to whether Allmusic is reliable/unreliable. That said, would you consider having articles for all musicians listed on Allmusic? Is it enough to base a biography entirely on the weight of Allmusic's content, especially considering the aforementioned no consensus? As scope_creep suggests above, one would usually look for good quality sources beyond a database, and in this case I'm not seeing coverage that would sustain this article. Best, PK650 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can check in Reliable Sources if you want? What a do know is that single mention, isn't sufficient for notability. It is a single primary source, where is the in-depth secondary sources. Non-existent. scope_creep^Talk 00:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean. I couldn't find any of relevance, could you? PK650 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been discussed many times by WikiProject Albums with the outcome that it is a reliable source, also an independently written bio and record review are secondary sources not primary sources. However, I agree that more sources are needed, I haven't done a full source search yet so am reducing to weak keep as nonone has found more yet, regards Atlantic306 (talk)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider a short database bio and a single review from the same source as proof of notability. PK650 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: Hi, can you tell me what that implies? Best, PK650 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: Would be moved to Draft:Diamond Version, with some number of months to fix, and then submit to be moved back. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: Thanks, but how would that change notability? PK650 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would give time for more to develop. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as "give their PR company time to fabricate spam sources". Notability is generally not garnered in 6 months' time. I wouldn't give false hope to a draft creator when the subject of the article is non-notable and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. PK650 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never see a small act blow up and get real coverage in six months time? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this counts as a !vote, but we have one good source (Allmusic bio, written by staff writer (which is often a good sign of notability), you do have to check for UGC), but I couldn't find anything else. Any printed EDM zines from that era? I would vote merge to Nicolai, except most of the current information fails WP:V, I think, unless some library archived the Sonar Festival programme. Perhaps the Allmusic information should be added to Nicolai's article, and this topic be re-directed there until such time as an additional independent, in-depth source be found. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alva Noto. I think this will resolve the questions and concerns about reliability of sources and significance of coverage. I think this has been the "way out" for other side projects, when we have gotten into this issue before. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Move to draft to allow incubation. If notable, resubmit for our NPP. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few minor hits for their CI album, but nothing about the band that would suggest they pass WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 4 January 2020 (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.