Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombina and The Skeletones

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. Wizardman 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombina and The Skeletones[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Ectoplasmic is not a major label. Myspace is not a reliable source, and neither is the band's own page. Search results consist mainly of lyrics sites, also not reliable sources. Internal links in the article mostly circle back to the article, especially for Zombina herself. DarkAudit (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artist and albums. Artist fails WP:MUSIC in every way, and so do the albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, notability not established per WP:MUSIC or WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC and has no 3rd party sources. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band meets the "heard of them before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. Seem to be a reasonable number of sources available per Google News. [1] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That is not a valid guideline. WP:MUSIC is. Having your hometown paper send a guy 'round to see a hometown show is not a reasonable show of notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Neither is "so-and-so appeared" in a review of a wider event. Many of these listings you present are club listings, not news. DarkAudit (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band is internationally recognised, as evidenced by many press articles on their official site (along with being featured on many movie soundtracks and having worldwide radio airplay). Having checked the music guidelines several of the criteria are easily met by this band. To the person who said that the band's official site is not a valid source of information - can you please explain what does constitute a valid source of information if the OFFICAL SITE OF THE BAND is not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.193.128 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Per the reliable sources guideline, sources must be reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. A band's own site is not independent. DarkAudit (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News results linked above include reviews in the Liverpool Daily Post, a major regional newspaper not "your hometown paper send[ing] a guy 'round to see a hometown show", and NME, a major source for this type of subject matter. There are also articles from Finland, Greece, Japan and the United States - even less "hometown". Maybe the individual albums aren't notable, but they can easily be merged into the band's article without being deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Liverpool paper reviewing a show at a Liverpool club is still local, no matter the size of the paper. These are your average club dates that any large city will have, The NME links appear to be club listings, not features about the band except in one possible case. A single feature (and I can't tell how much of a feature it is without putting up money to find out) is not "substantial". Notability is not inherited from the people doing the coverage. Trivial coverage is still trivial coverage no matter whose byline it's under. DarkAudit (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2008 (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.