Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Analog

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God Analog[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that they exist, which isn't enough in and of itself in the absence of passing WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but five of the seven footnotes here are simple directory entries in Genius or Discogs.com, which are not notability-building sources at all, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which the band leader is talking about himself in the first person, which would be fine for verification of facts but can't clinch notability all by themselves in lieu of any sources that represent third-party coverage or analysis.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing here, either in the content or the sourcing, is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no charted singles or albums and nothing in any RS, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning - I appreciate the feedback. However, given the notable members of the group and coverage in Billboard (highly notable publication), I believe there is case for notability. Certainly not an A-list, but notable. 2601:640:C700:FB90:7872:E1D3:400F:8E0B (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - I appreciate the feedback. However, given the notable members of the group and coverage in Billboard (highly notable publication), I believe there is case for notability. Certainly not an A-list, but notable.

I'll openly admit I'm new to article writing and am certain I can use advice, so if you'd provide me what more is needed, I would appreciate it! 2601:640:C700:FB90:7872:E1D3:400F:8E0B (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Q&A interview in Billboard, in which a band member is answering questions in the first person, is not sufficient in and of itself. We would need to see several pieces of third-party coverage, in which the band is being written about and analyzed in the third person by professional journalists or music critics, before notability was established here. The notability test is not "they exist", it's "their accomplishments have made them a subject of journalism and analysis by people other than themselves". Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Not enough notability to pass WP:NBAND. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:00, 28 January 2023 (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.