Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface Unsigned

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Unsigned[edit]

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

This article was discussed as an MfD when it sat in userspace a little while ago. However, the discussion centred on whether it was going to be finished, not on the notability of the subject. I've looked into it a little further and feel it warrants further discussion here. I'm not seeing sufficient notability in this unsigned bands competition, despite it being nationwide it hasn't garnered enough attention in reliable sources for me - just a few local articles, some standard gig-listing stuff, and a very occasional article on the spat that the organisers had with some bloggers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our nominator mentions the earlier {{mfd}}, but seems to have forgotten to include a ref to that discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JohnDTraynor/Surface Unsigned.
Comment the nomination acknowledges that the festival is a nationwide festival, that has been in existence for several years, However it goes on to say: "it hasn't garnered enough attention in reliable sources for me - just a few local articles, some standard gig-listing stuff, and a very occasional article on the spat that the organisers had with some bloggers" Since when are regional broadcasters or regional newspapers not considered WP:RS? No offense but it seems to me nominators arguments may just boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename' -- When I took a crack at rewriting this, when it was in user space, I trimmed some of the material on the Surface Unsigned organization. As I believe I wrote elsewhere, I thought the title of the article should have been "Surface Unsigned Festival". Geo Swan (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I tihnk you're assuming bad faith here when there's no need to. First off, I linked to the previous discussion (that's why "an MfD" is highlighted in blue in my nomination). Second, given the way the MfD closed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to get some more eyes on the article to establish notability. I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I'm saying there isn't enough of them to establish any notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't the reason I nominated. Notability is.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Notability", while often treated as an objective measure here, is actually highly subjective. It doesn't require bad faith to lapse into an argument equivalent to "IDONTLIKEIT". It merely requires failing to recognize how subjective "notability" is.
  - I asked why you don't recognize local newspapers as RS. It seems to me you didn't choose to answer, first time around. Should I ask again?
  - Could you please be specific about the nature of the additional material you think is missing?
  - I stand corrected, the nomination does include a ref to the {{mfd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Repeating myself again here - "I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I'm saying there isn't enough of them to establish any notability." That is, it hasn't received the significant coverage we require. Four of the references in the article are still from the subjects own website. You really aren't addressing the problems that this article has. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I started the MfD; I see it succumbed to bureaucracy, so here we are. This is not a notable festival. The coverage is minimal and all from local sources, and the coverage is not about the festival itself, but rather about some local unsigned bands. Fences&Windows 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability notwithstanding, this article is so entirely promotional, I somewhat wonder where the link is hidden to send in my deposit and registration form. Cindamuse (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (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.