Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegboard Nerds

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. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pegboard Nerds[edit]

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

Promotional, no secondary sources, notability Semitransgenic _talk. 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this page come across as promotional? I'll do my best to add some secondary sources and establish notability: I'm surprised that 55,000 Facebook likes and a lot of chart success isn't enough to count as notable. I don't know how well you know the electronic dance music community but the Nerds are very much a part of it, and I'd be happy to help persuade you further! DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's promotional in so far as it has the appearance of something that exists primarily for SEO purposes and serves zero encyclopedic value at this point, there are many such articles on Wikipedia. We need WP:RS for articles of any description. Also, the article fails WP:NMG criteria. At the very least clear evidence of national chart success is required, Beatport is not enough. There are 1000s of EDM acts coming and going every month, what makes this one so notable? Semitransgenic _talk. 10:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the prose sounds promotional, but that can easily be fixed if this is kept. Unfortunately, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is what counts towards notability, not how many "likes" someone got. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the fact that they're on the lineup for Global Gathering and Creamfields change your views on their notability? I can add some more relevant information to back up WP:NMG if you point me in the right direction. DJUnBalanced (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article isn't in a great condition, but Pegboard Nerds are well known in the EDM community. I'll look for some references. Green CKE 12:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's some references. I don't think many of these are reliable or enough to establish notability, though.

Green CKE 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GreeenCKE, I don't understand why you're recommending keep when your own conclusion appears to be that the band is not notable. Dricherby (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE agree with others, none of the sources are usable, some are nothing more than press releases, "well known within the EDM community" is not equivalent to notable within the context of dance music, or music articles more generally. There are hundreds of EDM acts out on the club circuit, being "known" and being notable, are very different things. 81.138.0.28 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article -- this musical group currently fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.I am unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (And the links above provided by GreenCKE do not meet Wikipedia requirements.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (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.