Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Loud

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Loud

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to support notability. One song charting on multiple charts is not enough. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable artists with song charted in many countries and reliable sources - [1][2][3][4] - TheMagnificentist 15:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding each of these sources:

[5] - Four lines of vacuous promo from a fansite.

[6] - Their own Allmusic bio.

[7] - A three sentence-long promo from a music promoter.

[8] - A paragraph-long reliable secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it's a fansite.

Allmusic is reliable and a secondary source. Doesn't matter if it's "their own bio".

Disagree that it's a music promoter.

Paragraph-long is good enough. Electronic music isn't the same as popular mainstream music for it to immediately have sources with 2-3 pages about a topic. - TheMagnificentist 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To meet any WP:MUSIC criteria is not an argument for guaranteed notability. The guidelines clearly specify it means a subject may be notable. One chart entry is a start, perhaps, but In this case there is not enough significant evidence to merit an entry. Most references are user submitted sites. Specifically regarded two sources argued above:

[9] When AllMusic was primarily a print publication it had tight criteria for inclusion. Not so much these days, evolving since it began partnering with Rovi/TiVo database for its content. While the site continues to have independent editorial oversight, their standards have dipped to list bands whose only criteria is that they have produced a product(s) that is offered for retail distribution. A band can be listed that otherwise does not meet a single qualification per WP:MUSIC. Also note that the site itself openly solicits bands to provide their own promotional material to aid them in putting together an entry, making the content a strange mixture of first and third person reference. AllMusic entries therefore need to be assessed on a case by case basis. In the case of this subject, the entry seems very "light".

[10] The site is a collective of mostly amateur (and a few professional) reviewers. Take that for what it is. It's significance is weak. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per analysis which is spot on by ShelbyMarion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 18 March 2017 (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.