Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underpilot

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. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underpilot

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

Article does not cite any sources and Google searches (web and news) don't return any results; absolutely nothing regarding the formation of this band. Possible hoax. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I listen to modern rock radio religiously, and would have heard of this band by now if it actually existed. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Just because you haven't heard them on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just that they are not notable. But searching Google doesn't turn up any results aside from Wikipedia. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this band had been formed by the people this article claims are the bands members, the radio stations would have made a big deal about it. That this hasn't happened is, IMO, a very strong indication that the band doesn't exist. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not every rock radio station talk about everything. Saying "every" radio station is a bit generalistic. By saying that, you are saying everything in music has to be mentioned. That's not the way things work. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not trying to say "I haven't heard about this band on the radio, therefore it's not notable", I'm saying "The fact that I haven't heard about this band on the radio is a good indication that they don't exist". As the article claims that this is a supergroup (with Scott Weiland as a member), I would argue that a lack of discussion by radio stations is a very good indication that this article is a hoax. Furthermore, I would not argue that every band that is not discussed on the radio is unworthy of inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you are being generalistic. There are a great many bands that don't get mentioned on the radio and are quite notable. There are a great many bands who do get mentioned on the radio and are not that notable. Just because they don't get mentioned doesn't mean anything. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}

I think the consensus is comment, not delete : D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would definitely agree with that, but I think your missing my point in this particular case, which is, If a new band had formed, with Scott Weiland as a member, it would almost certainly have been discussed by most rock stations, as Mr. Weiland is such a high profile figure in rock music. I'm not using this argument to address notability, I'm using it to asses the likelihood that the article is a hoax. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you are saying that a band or artist needs to be mentioned on the radio to exist. There are many bands that never get mentioned on the radio and very much exist. You are saying that bands or artists can't be non-radio friendly. That is just asinine. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI did not say that at all, and yes this is getting asinine. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, no indication of notability in the article, and at least one "listener" says no, when no, and no references to dispute that, despite a lot of ink spilled. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shadowjams....--Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 9 April 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.