Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh (band)

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh (band)[edit]

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

Indie band, appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:BAND and indeed WP:HOLE. The only independent source for this article is side-line.com, which does not appear to be sufficient to establish notability - and even that appears to be churnalism. There's no evidence of significant independent coverage, and most of the article reads like a fan blog. The bands been going for nearly 25 years and appears to have achieved pretty much nothing beyond routine gigging. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently a major label band, for at least some of their history - at least 1 or 2 major label albums. Have also had hits in Germany ([1], [2]). The band's popularity seems to be mainly in Germany, where most of the coverage also seems to come from, although there is a brief (and out of date) bio at Allmusic ([3]). --Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be stretching the definition of "major" :-) Regardless, I see no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, and the business about charts and labels is only a ready-reckoner for the kind of band that's likely to have sufficient sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as I see no better sourcing aside from what I found (a few links) with "Mesh Bristol England Mark Hockings synthpop" at News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amazingly, there are articles on this band on eight different Wikipedias and no reliable sources attached to any of them. I found a number of dedicated reviews of their various albums: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as an interview with the band: [9], but I don't think any of these really qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. In particular, their genre does not seem to be one of the ones that's relegated to underground scenes and only appears in blogs, so if they're a standout, there should be more coverage. They're allegedly famous in Germany, but it can't be verified in reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On balance, I feel the subject is sufficiently significant for inclusion. The Allmusic bio, Terrorizer review, a few bits of German coverage, major label releases, and the sources confirming national chart placings are sufficient to have a reasonably sourced stub, but the content will need to be reduced to what is verifiable. --Michig (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AMG bios are not independent, they are often submitted by the band or its management. Are there any reviews in significant sources? Terrorizer is... non-wonderful. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until Clean Up References. -- CalabJessika (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig remarks notable musician/band.The Cross Bearer (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there is some coverage, it is all trivial, non-independent, or from less than stellar sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:36, 25 January 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.