Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Queens

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Queens[edit]

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

The Anti-Queens (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)

Appears to be a non-notable band that doesn't pass WP:NBAND. Lot of non-neutral puffery and a before search didn't turn up enough to convince me that they're notable. Article was also created by Michaelxcrusty, who appears to be a member of the band based on the members listed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'll concur and add that the four (unsourced) opening paragraphs sound like the kind of vacuous peacockery that ChatGPT could generate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most resources online are show reviews or notices that they exist. It might be useful to have as a stub (as in, there are enough sources to show that the band exists), but it's non-neutral enough that most of the writing would have to be scrapped anyways. starsandwhales (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is quite highly advertorialized, and is not making any claims about their career that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than it's citing. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like advertisement, no significant coverage. Killarnee (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a non-notable band. Where are you finding your info? They've been around for over 10 years, have been direct support for quite a few well known bands (a simple google search will show you this - Bowling For Soup, Danko Jones, Cancer Bats, multiple festivals). Additionally Emily Bones has been in two videos with Sarah Blackwood with over a million views on each video. Virtuallyunknown666 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://aestheticmagazinetoronto.com/2019/10/01/interview-the-anti-queens-talk-debut-album-new-music-videos-tour-prep/ Virtuallyunknown666 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia purposes, notability requires satisfying one or more specific criteria listed at WP:NMUSIC, supported by a significant volume of reliable source coverage in real media. Kindly note that "around for 10 years" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC, "direct support for well known bands" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC, and "has been in YouTube videos with the singer of a more famous band" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC. We're looking for things like charting hits and Juno Awards, not YouTube videos.. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woman hater 2001:1970:4E9C:9700:390C:73F8:E607:A31D (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The notability standards for bands don't change based on whether the members are male or female, so accusing people in this discussion of being a "woman hater" has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell some of my favourite bands and voices, such as Halestorm, The Pretty Reckless, and Heart (band), are women, and I'm the one who nominated this for deletion lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an article's supporter compares a call for evidence to oppression, you know that the chances of notability are pretty much hopeless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well countered IP, this of course is a powerful argument haha
The article is written differently now, but when I read the introduction I really thought the article was a joke:

Since their formation in 2012 by the visionary singer/songwriter Emily Bones, The Anti-Queens have been carving their unique mark on the punk rock landscape.

“carving their unique mark on the punk rock landscape”. 6.85K subscribers on YouTube. Oh dear. Killarnee (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The currently hideous state of the article's writing (yeesh, lighten up on the adjectives) makes the situation look a little worse than it really is, because the band has gotten some notice in the reliable Punk News and a few other places. They come kind of close to WP's notability requirements, but I will argue that they have not satisfied the significant coverage guideline because their media coverage tends to be brief announcements (e.g. someone left the band), gig notices, and new release announcements. There's nothing with which to build an encyclopedic history, so they wrote it themselves and didn't skimp on how unique and visionary and raw and talented and compelling they are. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Anti-Queens&oldid=1214776501"