Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Latency

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. Sandstein 09:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Latency[edit]

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

Another band where it seems to me as an admitted outsider to the entire field there is insufficient sourcing for WMUSIC DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only potential claim to passing WP:NMUSIC here is the chart positions attained by the single "Tonight, I Love You", but those completely fail to verify in a Billboard search. And Billboard is the only acceptable or notability-conferring chart provider for Canada's "Hot 100" or "Hot AC" charts in the 21st-century, because both RPM and The Record were long gone by 2009 — so if they don't verify in Billboard then there's no other acceptable chart to "rectify" them to. And since bands and musicians quite routinely try to curveball their way around our notability standards by claiming to have had bigger chart hits than they ever really did, it's not the claim of a chart position that gets a band into Wikipedia but the ability to verify that the claimed chart position is actually true. And this is not referenced to reliable sources that get the band past NMUSIC #1, either — it's referenced entirely to primary sources, with zero evidence of media coverage about them being shown at all, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2018 (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.