Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanthochroid

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthochroid[edit]

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

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

Blimey, you'd think this band was as big as Metallica or something. Massive Vanity piece for Non notable band. "Awards" are not major. Claim charting is not GOODCHARTS. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Lot's of blogsites, youtube and facebook and similar non notable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weak point of wiki, that if one person hasn't heard of a wiki article subject. It can quickly be put on the deletion block. There are many of us, we can take care of the stated problems with the article. naninnewetuah (talk) 21:39, 01 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This seems to pass WP:GNG but requires a clear re-write to suit WP:NPOV Germcrow (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Seems? How does it pass. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to scale through WP:GNG Laosilika (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germcrow, Laosilika... duffbeerforme is right – there might well be a lot of references in the article, but not one of the 62 citations passes WP:RS. The links to the band's own Facebook and YouTube sites are not independent and fail WP:RSSELF, as do the various metal blogs. The only site which would be considered reliable is Sputnikmusic, but the review on this site is from a user, not a member of staff, so it's not usable either. We'd be happy to rewrite it, but without any acceptable sources, it's going to be impossible to do so. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - does not meet WP:BAND - no notable recordings - most of the references are to YouTube and Facebook, not to reliable independent sources - blatantly promotional article - some sections lack any citations - Epinoia (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable band.PE65000 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is an attempt to promote the band and make them appear notable by overwhelming the reader with lots of citations, but as others have noted above the sources are uniformly unreliable. They have been noticed by a few vanity blogs and they actually have one reliable album review: ([1]). But all other sources found are either bare directory entries or self-published social media. Existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is an attempt to promote the band and make them appear notable by overwhelming the reader with lots of citations, but as others have noted above the sources are uniformly unreliable. They have been noticed by a few vanity blogs and they actually have one reliable album review: ([2]). But all other sources found are either bare directory entries or self-published social media. Existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent band and focus on metal music so citations will be outlets that are less known to general public. It passes WP:GNG and has been re-written to suit WP:NPOV ParinazF (talk)

Yes, it's true that they won't get coverage in mainstream music outlets, but the metal blogs you have left in the article still don't pass the GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources", because none of them pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2019 (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.