Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back Back Forward Punch

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back Back Forward Punch[edit]

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

Article about a band with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no substantive reliable source coverage. The sourcing here is almost entirely to music WP:BLOGS, and the one source that actually has any potential to save their skin, Triple J, gives up two dead links and one profile which verifies that they exist but fails to say anything substantive about them beyond "they exist". Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they're definitely not there yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I dispute the characterisation of most of the sources were mere blogs (ie self-published sources) I believe that most were WP:NEWSBLOGs about music. In any case, I've added more sources and expanded some of the refs. Some of the additional sources provide substantial independent commentary on the subject covering WP:BAND#1, the Triple J ref(s) considered above do support claims of high rotation on a national radio station hence cover WP:BAND#11. Some of their singles have been reviewed by three or more independent sources, with content from those reviews now quoted in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading WP:NEWSBLOG if you think any of the blogs being cited here satisfy it. That criterion does not mean that any blog counts as a valid source so long as its content can be characterized as news — what it means is that the blog has to be hosted on the website of a news organization that counts as a reliable source. For example, a columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian, or on the website of a television network news organization, whose column was structured in a blog format would still be an acceptable source, because it has a reliable source's imprimatur standing behind it — but a standalone music blog, without RS backing, does not become a reliable source just because somebody says its content is news. But I can't see any evidence that any of the blogs cited here meet the criteria to be considered an RS under NEWSBLOG, because there's no evidence that any of them is an offshoot or subsection of a reliable parent publication.

And the problem with the Triple J links remains that two of the three are dead links — meaning we can't verify what they said — and the third is just a profile with no substantive content. CBC Music has a section like that too, where emerging bands are allowed to repost their own EPK bios and upload two or three songs for streaming purposes — but while the uploading makes those songs eligible to get played on CBC Radio 2 or CBC Radio 3, the existence of the profile does not in and of itself prove that the songs have been placed in rotation by either service. Nor does it count as a WP:GNG-conferring source for our purposes, because its content about the band is self-penned by the band. (There are other parts of CBC Music that do count as reliable and GNG-conferring sourcing, like the main daily newsfeed and the magazine — but the "band profiles" section does not.) And the Triple J profile does not provide any evidence in and of itself that its Unearthed section functions any differently — nothing about the page provides any verification that the band have gotten into terrestrial rotation, nor does it even really say anything about the band at all besides the facts that they exist and a couple of individual users star-rated a song. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2016

Delete - I dont see anything important— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.208.130 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2016‎

See WP:BELONG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no legitimate sources. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2016 (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.