Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweat Engine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat Engine[edit]

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

Sweat Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable band. None of the current sources are reliable or independent of the group. After running a few searches, I could not any significant coverage that can justify their notability for an stand-alone article. Does not seem to even meet any WP:BAND criteria. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage, no reliable sources. Couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites like databases, retail sites and stuff where the words are separated. Never heard of them but I looked them up and this was all I found. Actually most of the results are the words separated, there is very little about the band and they are all unreliable. This was a very underground band which have made no waves when they were active and certainly not now. I said it before and I say it again: it's a shame that so many non-notable bands inhabit Wikipedia (even though this article was created recently). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accurate coverage by secondary sources.Soul Crusher (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) --Note: Page creator [reply]
No not really, none of the current sources are reliable. All four of them are unreliable sources (Allmusic) and fail to demonstrate any significant coverage of the subject, that is they are just mentions in a sea among many others. I can't even access the third source as it warns me that my connection is not private. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's what I meant to say, AllMusic is not a reliable source to establish notability from. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's analyze the sources. As Atlantic306 said, Allmusic is a reliable source indeed when the page of the artist contains a biography or the page of the album contains a review. This time though the biography page is blank and the album page is just a track listing, with no reviews from either the staff or users whatsoever (if users posted a review it wouldn't make the album notable either). So Allmusic is not a reliable source in this case. One of the sources (Sonic Boom) is not even available to me, as the domain has expired. And the last one (Aiding & Abetting) is a really short album review which could be the only halfway acceptable source, although I am not convinced about that either, as this review is just one of multiple similarly short album reviews, on a site whose reliability looks dubious to me at best. And finally we are at the external links which are the official site of the band, Discogs and Musicbrainz. Unreliable sites alright, but they are still good for external links, but for external links only, not main sources. So I still think this band is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the GNG and NBAND. Ravenswing 22:56, 12 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sweat_Engine&oldid=972738247"