Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThisisDA

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 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThisisDA[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. for (;;) (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: here's the quote from Clash [1] and there is the article in Complex as well, so there are two RS available. But they are the only two things that might pass WP:MUSICBIO, and I really don't know that there is enough there in both of them to be able to say anything of substance. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment not my field, but I interpret the Clash article as saying he's a new artist who might be notable someday. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – even though he's been around a couple of years, it still feels a bit WP:TOOSOON to have a article about him. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy to dissect this sources even if the "we" suggests a conflict of interest. The MTV link is simply a post of a video, based no doubt on a received press release. Hundreds of these are published and they're not substantial coverage. Amazing Radio is not a suitable source for establishing notability, as it's a radio station with a small listenership that focuses on unsigned artists, by its very definition covering the sort of acts that aren't important enough for Wikipedia yet. One performance at a gallery wouldn't be enough either, and their website is not a reliable source because it's primary. The fourth one is a Tweet. The fifth is the new music section of a magazine and, again, lots and lots of bands go through there and the majority of them are not yet independently notable. The sixth one is again a tweet. As for expressing what might justify an article, it's substantial coverage via reliable sources. None of this is. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't enough coverage here to justify inclusion, and the list of links provided in this AFD is stretching at best. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are woefully unequipped for dealing with bands, when in this day and age lots and lots get brief snippets of coverage in irrelevant corners of magazines or in the bowels of significant websites, and this always pops up as evidence of relevant coverage. Most of that coverage is a result of a PR agency or artist management submitting content to websites that then re-publish it for easy content; It isn't substantial or in-depth, and it isn't prominently located. Clash and Crack themselves are somewhere in the middle for prominence, but a passing mention in a section that isn't dedicated to the artist isn't exactly enough. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk) That's justified. We were looking at the press coverage and reach of the networks as relevant to notability. The discussion and page can be closed — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingYF1313 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 August 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.