Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undergone

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undergone[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not truly meet the expectations of WP:MUSIC. No listing at Allmusic. Appearances on the Warped tour were local one-shots. Not signed to a major label or a notable indie label. No albums or tracks charting. No awards. No evidence of any significant coverage. References limited to their own Myspace, YouTube, and Twitter pages. None of which are acceptable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Myspace, You Tube, and Twitter pages are only 3 of 9 references. I believe there is significant coverage. It meets the the first rule on the list of criteria: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Is the magazine article and Alternative Addiction article mean nothing? The band is also signed to a major management company, does that not do anything? I will add a few more things to the article from antimusic.com for more references. Insomniac186 (talk) 8:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant coverage that would establish notability. I see 11 references in the version I'm looking at but they aren't sufficient. My analysis follows:

is a band profile for an event - doesn't establish notability
is their management group's web site - hardly an independent source
is a press release
is a site for a film in which they contributed to the sound track - doesn't establish notability
is a press release
is coverage of the band focused on one band member in a local San Jose paper - this contributes towards notability
is a link to their video - doesn't establish notability
is the "Alternative Addiction" web site. It isn't clear that there is substantial editorial standards that would convince me that this site's coverage contributes to notability
is a plea from the band for some help - self-published so not independent
is their Myspace site - not indpendent
is the "Alternative Addiction" web site identifying their picks for top 10 unsigned bands. Se above for why this doesn't convince me.

-- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above (as much as I hate to simply agree and not put in my own opinion, Whpq says it all). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:55, 20 June 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.