Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown Component

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Component

This article says virtually nothing about this artist, instead it devotes itself to pointing out how notable he is. So it's not a speedy deletion candidate, but it is not a good sign that the author feels so much justification is needed. Indeed, there is no actual evidence the artist is actually notable - the only links are primary. I sought out the references suggested, but not explicitly linked, and came up with only one: Reax Music Magazine says "Unknown Component ... is a one-man pop-rock project ... that's really what we're talking about here at the end of the day" - so, in fact, it tells us that the act is not especially notable. I cannot find confirmation of anything else and even if I did it seems nothing quite reaches the standard needed for WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above, the Unknown Component article does meet the following standards listed in the WP:MUSICBIO. requirements

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (The 4th Life)

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (Undercurrents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pivotal11 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contend these are two of the "does not quite make it" categories.

10. The film has to be notable but this one appears not to be - it is an experimental film with very limited release. (As an aside, the requirement is that there was a performance in the notable film and it was performed for the film, which I am not sure is not the same thing as having a piece used.)

11. The radio requirement is for an artist to be placed on rotation by a major radio network. The show in question is aparrently syndicated to a number of local stations but that does not seem to meet the definition of "major radio network". And "on rotation" requires multiple plays over multiple shows. Plus, there needs to be verifiable evidence.

Perhaps this is a rising star who will go on to meet MUSICBIO, but he does not appear to have done yet. I42 (talk)

Keep (by the skin of his teeth), passes WP:MUSIC#C1 maybe, sort of, possibly; [1], [2], [3], (oops, already mentioned by nom), [4], [5]. While the article (and User:Pivotal11) make some claims, I don't see those ones being backed up with WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not seeing sufficient Notability (admittedly, the subject comes closer than many other misses we see here), and has very weak Sourcing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has an Allmusic page, but with no written content. The sources provided thus far are sketchy and minimal. I'm not seeing sufficient N and V either. Rafablu88 17:23, 15 August 2009 (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.