Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Noise

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The White Noise[edit]

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

Article about a two year old musical group. Fails WP:BAND for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as I'm not finding convincingly better, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are mostly user contributed sites, social media, or promotional. The sole reference that doesn't fall into that category, New Noise Magazine, is hard to judge on merit. While it gets national distribution in music stores and the like, it seems somewhat "niche" and, to my mind, a single review in such a publication doesn't translate into significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fearless Records (as The White Noise's record label) is a reliable source and the biographies on Reverb Nation and Pure Volume were both written by the band. Additionally I have since added sources to Alternative Press (which connotes media coverage as one of the most popular music magazines) and itunes (which I believe is a reliable source). Issan_Sumisu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (GMT)

Note to Issan_Sumisu, as the author of the article you are entitled to an explanation of why this is failing. It's not a question of how reliable the source is. The problem is that a bio on the band's label is promotional. The write up in Alternative Press is a simple regurgitation of a press announcement from the band (or its label?). And being on iTunes does not convey notability. Add a dozen more similar references and it still wouldn't meet notability if the tone is promotional or self serving. The sources need to be independent of the band's promotional interest. So far only one (New Noise Magazine) meets the criteria but, as stated above, doesn't add up to much. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source I could find was [1], which is way too thin to be a source. Fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:32, 2 May 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.