Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Skies

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Skies

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Provided sources do not meet WP:RS and I can't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources listed only mention the band and do not have extensive coverage of them. Of the remainder only four were not from blogs or were not self-published (Facebook and YouTube):

http://metalmouth.net doesn't appear to have any editorial staff but the "Team Of Writers" "cover all genres of rock and metal, regardless of our personal taste".
http://www.progrockmag.com/ may meet RS based on http://weareteamrock.com/about, but no staff are listed.
http://got-djent.com/ is a fan forum based on http://got-djent.com/about where they have administrators, a webmaster and content moderators but no writers.
http://www.nocleansinging.com/ isn't a RS per http://www.nocleansinging.com/about/.

So unfortunately, they do not meet BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Seems precipitant at this point to delete on those grounds. If it is determined there are no reliable sources OR more importantly that the band d/n meet notability requirements, that'd be different. Paavo273 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Our job is to determine if there are or are not reliable sources and I just showed that there are none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage to date (from the article plus a Google search) appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 04:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New band, might be notable in future, do not appear to be now. Can anyone provide non-trivial, RS cites to demonstrate notability? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two points. Your first point aligns with WP:TOOSOON. The second point, however, is a little odd as it's the job of any AfD discussion to find those sources. It's not the job of some defender of the article to do that. In other words we're not evaluating whether the existing sources are sufficient rather it's to determine if the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. If I ask, "are there sources?", that means I looked, could not find, but am open enlightenment from better-informed or more diligent editors. And if I am being particularly stupid or lazy, please feel free to embarrass me with an abundance of obvious, easily obtained cites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no major awards . Sources provided are not entirely third party, fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2014 (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.