Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ono Palindromes

Ono Palindromes

Ono Palindromes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Speedy declined. Article itself indicates they've gotten major radio play, and some press in music publications, but a google search hits primarily primary sources. The non primary sources don't say much, and I haven't found any that strike me as WP:RS, although I suppose I could be wrong. Google news turns up 0. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see enough to cover WP:BAND here. Article seems to be written simply to promote the band, creating editor seems to have some COI issues too. No prejudice to re-create a properly sourced article, assuming it passes WP:BAND. Rehevkor ✉ 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Information to verify (with ex Links) has been added - please make aware of any further changes required..Tibtib123 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BAND you'd need "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", NMA one seems pretty trivial to me. Is Artrocker a reliable source? Still, hardly real significant coverage here. Rehevkor ✉ 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Artrocker is a fairly significant magazine in the UK in terms of music - NME - trivial? Have you been around for the last 30 years? Tell you what have a listen?Johged (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not say NME was trivial, just the coverage was. Rehevkor ✉ 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

so the solution?Johged (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Might not be one. Otherwise find the sources to cover the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criteria. Rehevkor ✉ 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rehevkor - For people interested in emerging music, sources, such as the NME & Artrocker, are credible and well respected. I think the issue perhaps is down to a lack of knowledge of UK based press? Could it be that due to the coding used on Wikipedia that the author has struggled to correctly Cite references. After a few searches I can tell you that all sources currently cited on the the page are correct. There also could be more references which have not been cited. At present the Page looks like a shell, and I think judgement should be made after the page (which is clearly still being edited) is completed to a proper standard?80.195.84.245 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice you used "emerging music" there - it takes time for bands to become notable by Wikipedia's standards, and I doubt any "emerging" band would easily pass that. So far there are not enough significant sources so address the notability issues, and I don't feel there are any at this time. The article has seen little development since it was first created beyond adding the sources and clean up, and if you cut out the text that is purely promotional toward the band you're left with a couple of sentences, just how much time would it take an article such as this to be "completed"? Months? Years? I'm sure you'd love for the band, which you both seem to have some connection to, to have a well developed article, but that won't happen without following wikipedia's policies. Of course is all just one person's opinion, I'm sure other editors will chime in with their !votes, but I suspect anyone familiar with wiki-policy will agree with me. Rehevkor ✉ 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears the page has had some editing done... lol interesting arguements! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johged (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes fascinating. Rehevkor ✉ 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rehevkor - how about you correctly code and reference the material given? perhaps send the band a personal mail through either there myspace or yahoo which is availiable on there pages. - That way they perhaps could send you the references? and other noticable press or 'coverage' I noticed you said about 'other editors will chime in with their !votes..' It appears in nearly 5 days you are the only person continuing the argument?!? perhaps let this one slip? for good times sake...86.171.238.241 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Me? Sorry, I have no interest in working on the article, the burden is not on me to do so. Rehevkor ✉ 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah well good to hear your interference ends here! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.84.245 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More Content Added now... With Links to reference material in Ext. Links section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.205.162 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: The AfD was malformed before relisting; therefore, please consider this the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic - No wonder wikipedia is loosing money and people to moderate - How can it be malformed? The fact is that the argument ended in approval due to a lack of people saying NO? TIM SONG you are the only person carrying on the argument again like REHEVKOR you should stop being pedantic... how many more 'first weeks' must the losers here at wikipedia request? I think perhaps some people need to get a life...