Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masque:rade

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; with no prejudice against recreation in the event that the band becomes notable. Sr 13 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masque:rade

Asserts notability (speedy was contested), but I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. ` NawlinWiki 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - independent releases, no major label releases that I can discern, very, very minimal discussion online (a Google for '"Masque:rade" Perth' turned up three hits, '"Masque:rade" Koe' ten) - unless I'm missing something, there's no independent sources regarding this band as yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Delete, for the bottom section needs to comply with WP:NPOV. JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you must I was only trying to help out a band that is very important for my scene in my city. I must say this is a very disappointing first experience in editing Wikipedia articles. Probably the most unwelcoming online community I have joined. Unfortunate. Sfmcf 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are sorry that you didn't like your first experience, but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that must be maintained to keep it well-organized. This band simply isn't well enough known to have an article here. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unlike most things on wikipedia where notability is pretty vague, WP:MUSIC has well-defined guidelines for what is notable. Meeting any one of the guidelines should get your band in, though from the arguments you read in afd, you would think that missing any one keeps your band out. My suggestion to Sfmcf is to look at WP:MUSIC and honestly assess if this band meets at least one of the criteria, then point out which one in the first paragraph of your article (Criterion 7 looks promising for this group). I agree this is a surprisingly unfriendly place sometimes. Capmango 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything on Google News or Google News Archives about them and the article lacks sources of its own. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any WP:MUSIC criteria, except perhaps #7, but even there I'm not sure that this band is "prominent", given the lack of independent coverage. Support article re-creation however, if any of the criteria are met in the future. Lankiveil 05:01, 10 June 2007 (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.