Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MadHouse (duo)

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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MadHouse (duo)[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)

Unbelievable article written with trivia and useless information unsuitable for encyclopedia. On top of that its highly promotional. The band while definitely exists, comes no where close to WP:BAND. The references in the article are mere reference to the news media/radio station homepages and unreliable sources like youtube channel of the band. WP:BEFORE confirmed that there is absolutely nothing remarkable done by this duo. . Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue this should be Speedy Deleted under G11? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxnpichu, not at all. But since the article is a bit old and went through the works of a group of editors, I thought AfD to be the rigt place. Chirota (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some work, that's for sure. But its current version cites quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources, so it passes WP:BAND. There are past versions of it adopting more appropriate tones, so CSD no longer applies. An article should only be deleted if it is beyond saving; doesn't seem to be the case here. An {{Advert}} tag would suffice, for now, until someone works on that promotional tone, which was added a couple of years ago by a probable COI account. They may have seriously compromised the text's tone, but the article itself is not to pay the price for that. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 23:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lopes, we can surely keep an article if it is notable. Of course we are not discussing to victimize the article for its content and tone, rather we are assessing the subject's merit. WP:BAND#1 suggests just as WP:GNG suggests in someway, that the the mentions should be non-trivial, independent and reliable. Can you please elaborate which references you think to be satisfying all three of these? Also, if you hover to the history, the page was previously tagged with a COI template which was removed by another SPA. My analysis says, the reference "https://www.diariodeibiza.es" is unreliable, local media and not a reputed one. Same is true for ibiza global radio, www.musicjournal.com.br, caras.uol.com.br which are hardly independent and reliable and tabloid-like. There are some other low quality blog references and useless Spotify links. Lastly, if you see the discography of the band, it only released three singles and some remixes which definitely make them not noteworthy.Chirota (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it needs work. But it's not WP:TNT yet. It has sufficient reputable sources: Omelete, Rolling Stone Brasil, UOL, Programa do Jô (recently discontinued but comparable to Late Night with _____ in terms of national relevance) and a Google search returned me a couple more. I admit only a couple are providing in-depth coverage, but if several other sources published stories on them (even if just reverberating new singles and stuff), maybe they're noteworthy enough for the ones we use to measure noteworthiness. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Victor Lopes, it needs some work, that's for sure. But its current version cites quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources, so it passes WP:BAND. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two "keep" voters above used the exact same phrase "quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources" but did not provide one single example, and are possibly mixing up the terms reliable and significant per WP:SIGCOV. Via Google Translate I inspected the article's current sources that are not mere social media promotions or streaming entries. Footnotes #5, 19, 20, and 25 (as of the time of this comment) appear to be viable music media publications in Brazil, but they only provide either softball promotional interviews or brief announcements of some new single or video release. Via various searches of the band members and song titles I can find nothing more substantial. This WP article reflects the group's media blitz strategy, and good luck with that but Wikipedia has a different philosophy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know what I'm saying. Brazilian music and press have been some of my major areas of interest here for the past 15 years. I totally get your concern with promotional sources, but precisely because of my experience, I can say that unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to run away from these even for much more noteworthy subjects. IMHO, the solution for this article is basically returning to the pre-COI version without rejecting the good sources that we currently have. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BAND they meet criterion #4 as they have played in at least one sovereign country and have gotten coverage. They have played in Ibiza (Spain) and France according to the article and citaions. This article here is in-depth and talks about their Ibiza playing. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Lesliechin1, criterion #4 says "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour". Firstly their performance wasn't any international concert tour or national concert tour. Secondly the reference is neither RS nor seem to be independent.Chirota (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting a bit too technical whether a Gig in Ibiza is a tour or not. I would argue it is a very close variation for meeting notability. However, they also for sure meet Criterion #10 and possibly #11 and #12 too. Check this part "In 2018 the singers were invited to sing in Domingão do Faustão, the most popular TV show in Brazil" Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chirota on the "tour" -- being invited to play a one-off gig, possibly because they had connections with the organizer, is not a tour and could happen to any musician. Otherwise I will allow the discussion to play out on the supposedly reliable sources; but note WP:SIGCOV which states that the subject must be covered in reliable sources, AND that coverage must be significant and beyond brief mentions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should not be confused with Madhouse (band), the work details of MadHouse (duo) is insignificant and the achievements are not meeting the standards of notability per WP:BAND. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:31, 26 April 2021 (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.