Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetrafusion

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 November 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrafusion

[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also a WP:COI user has been creating/editing further articles regarding the band's albums [1] [2]. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan on WP:A9ing them if the group is deleted, rather than AfD all of the articles. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable - insufficient independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete fails WP:MUSIC, blatant WP:COI, and the record label they're "signed" to doesn't even exist. 2 says you, says two 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not outright fail WP:MUSIC, to my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[20], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [21], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[22] and interviewed on a few radio stations [23]. As for the WP:COI, I was under the impression that if it exists, it simply meant that an editor must exercise extreme caution when editing articles, and be especially careful to maintain a neutral POV, and the article seems to show that that was done, and if it wasn't, the article should be edited, not deleted. Lastly, I believe the record label does exist. [24]. GrizCakes (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of your sources appear to not be reliable, which is one of the main criteria for WP:GNG....plus a lot are not even in English, for me to verify CTJF83 chat 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was aiming for more sources are better than less, 5,7,8,10,13,17, the Magazines, and the Radio interview are the ones to focus on, as for the sources not in English, doesn't the fact that the article is covered internationally strengthen the case for notability? GrizCakes (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the coverage is non-trivial...I can't check to see how trivial the coverage is on non-English sites. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They all appear to be album reviews, which appears to go against WP:BAND #1 exceptions CTJF83 chat 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - 17 and the radio interview appear to focus on the band, I believe there was also a News Network interview (ABC 33/40), and some other radio interviews, but I'm having difficulty finding verifiable proof. GrizCakes (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I brought it here....lack of verifiable sources. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's difficult for a band of their size and time of being active to have entirely reliable sources. Album reviews, magazine articles, and radio interviews are all they have, which are completely independent sources that state information about the band as a third party. The band is definitely above water in the industry, with albums for sale at Best Buy, albums charting on Bestsellers charts, etc. WP:COI doesn't really apply as the articles are created to benefit Wikipedia in the sense that when media focuses on the band, they can have an entirely, objective source to draw information from, rather than relying on bias and subjectivity from other opinionated columns/interviews. This page has been active for quite awhile and only seems to be edited with strict, appropriate updates and appears from the editing logs to be used entirely for logistical reasons.AllMusicReview (chat 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (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.