Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Jefferson

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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Jefferson[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group: sources are mostly blogs or youtube links, those that are RS are only a brief mention of the group (trivial coverage). Fails WP:BAND. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I'm not familiar with some of those websites but searches failed to find anything significant and notable aside from a cbc.ca bio (which lists some reviews from other websites). SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that particular part of CBC Music is a promotional section where bands whose music is streamable from the site are able to post their own self-penned marketing bios. So while there are certainly parts of CBC Music, i.e. the daily news feed, which count as reliable source coverage for our purposes, the artist bios fall under our restrictions on primary sources and self-published content. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no claim that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing is almost entirely to primary (the band's own Bandcamp page), bloggy (Coke Machine Glow, Grayowl Point) and unreliable (YouTube) sources. Only sources #2 (The Independent) and #6 (Exclaim!) can ever count a whit toward getting a band over GNG — but in this case The Independent reference covers them in an extremely insubstantial, namechecking-their-existence way, comprising a grand total of just 15 words about them, and Exclaim!, while longer than that, still doesn't say nearly enough about them to get them over the bar by itself. Nothing here remotely resembles what gets a band into Wikipedia — it's basically a marketing profile of a band that exists, not an encyclopedia article about a band whose existence is noteworthy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can write a version which properly demonstrates and sources that they pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2015 (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.