Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball Park Music

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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Park Music[edit]

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

Non-notable band from Brisbane. The article was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7 but was quickly restored by the original creator. I nominated under CSD#A7 again but this was changed to a prod by somebody which was then contested. Other than a couple of music directories there seems to be very little coverage about this band. The references in the article include some primary sources and even a facebook page to pad the list out but this still doesn't give the band enough coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. AussieLegend (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No album yet, and very little coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete original speedy was correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band with very little or maybe no coverage anywhere. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National rotation on Triple J [1], satisfying wp:music#11. For coverage there is dBMagazine, Mess&Noise and Tweed Heads Daily News ("New kids in the Ball Park strike right note", 4 February 2010). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much looks like coi editing to this and other articles with article creator and band manager. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BAND only says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", not "will be notable". The general notability guidelines still apply and the sources you've provided don't constitute "significant coverage". The "Mess&Noise" reference you provided doesn't seem reliable since anyone appears to be able to contribute ("You need to be logged into Mess+Noise to contribute to the Releases. Go on and Log In or if you you're not a member, feel free to Sign Up"). --AussieLegend (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they may be. I say they are. National rotation is a good one for me. Especially considering the amount that song was thrashed. Wasn't thinkin much of the validity of this article till I checked the claim of rotation and downloaded the song and heard which it was. The amount I'd heard it was good enough for me. If everything goes back to the general notability guidelines that makes all the other guidelines redundent, wasting all the considered discussion that went in to them useless. The common misconception regarding the GNG is that while having that coverage verifiable may make one notable, lacking that easily verifiable coverage does not mean one is not notable. Other things make one notable, awrds, titles, public recognition, etc. Regarding coverage, the coverage I provided alone would not have (always) got a keep from me, probably just a comment detailing the coverage (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyager (metal band)). The coverage here adds to the notability given by the rotation. Re Mess and Noise, haven't totaly made my mind up about them but am current leaning towards a good source based on who I've seen writing for them. Shall look further.)duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and I tend to look down on people recreating bad articles after they are deleted. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:48, 27 September 2010 (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.