Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subsonic Factor

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsonic Factor

[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)

Contested PROD. Musical act with no reliable sources to indicate WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See also the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen Effect (2nd nomination), where there is suspicion of a possible conflict of interest. As for Subsonic Factor, there is evidence that they released records, but the article is dependent on puffery like "original founders", "biggest hit", and "thrust into the music scene". They can be seen in basic social media and genre directory sites but I can find nothing substantial per the requirements at WP:SIGCOV. The same appears to be true of Japanese sources as well. As a pre-Internet act it is possible that they were covered in old hardcopy magazines, and if anyone finds something useful I may reconsider. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com produces no results other than this false positive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improve upon article.... When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None are relevant here. There are no sources out there to use to improve this article. There's no place to merge it either. Deletion is the answer here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LiterateFactChecker when discussing an article, remember to consider arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just pointing at a policy or guideline such as ATD does not demonstrate anything. I would like to know which alternative you propose. I argue none of these are appropriate, there is no target for a merge, redirecting to Sony music makes no sense given the lack of notability or verfiability within the article, incubating is pointless given there is no sourcing available to make the article overcome its lack of notability with zero indication such could occur within the near future, and no other ATD appears nearly relevant. @Muboshgu is hence correct - the alternatives are not valid options and so deletion is the answer. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is at risk of turning into a repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen Effect (2nd nomination), with the same user having trouble accepting community consensus. Some articles simply cannot be improved, and adding yet another unreliable social media source makes no difference. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds as MusicLife, Unusualyxx, Mixi and VK are not reliable given they are WP:USERGENERATED. I can locate no other sources to indicate notability. This subject does not even come close to meeting any other criteria per WP:MUSIC. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2022 (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.