Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonesteel (band)

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonesteel (band)[edit]

[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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support an article. The strongest notability claim here is that they were named to a minor music trade magazine's listicle of 100 "hot unsigned bands" -- but this is not a notability-clinching "award" in and of itself, and even the listicle doesn't contain any information about the band beyond a simple namecheck of their existence. And as for sourcing, the 21 footnotes here also include eight entries in non-notable and unreliable blogs, four YouTube videos, five directory entries that verify the existence of songs without containing any independently-written critical content about the songs, and one completely tangential magazine article that serves to support a very general statement about human mental health without even mentioning this band at all in conjunction with it. Which means that 19 of the 21 sources here are doing nothing at all in terms of establishing that the band is notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- and of the two that are from real, reliable source media, one is a "local man does stuff" human interest piece in the local newspaper of the guitarist's own hometown and the other is a Q&A interview in which the band is speaking about themselves in the first person on a smalltown local radio station, which doesn't add up to enough coverage to get them over WP:GNG if it's the best you can do. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: they have to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and they have to have real reliable source coverage in real media to support an article, but nothing here meets either of those conditions yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough RS yet. Caro7200 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article a few days ago for not being notable due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources. This concern is still valid as the current sources are mostly links to songs (not independent and not reliable) and to unreliable blogs. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They don't yet meet GNG or NBAND. JSFarman (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 4 April 2020 (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.