Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needlepeen

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. ✗plicit 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needlepeen[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)

While this band certainly exists, there seems to be no real sources that can establish notability per the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added some sources -Danimations1 Danimations2 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable third party sources. This subject also fails WP:NMUSIC. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if a band like Red Abbott can have a wikipedia page when they have 2 monthly listeners on Spotify, the subject can. Danimations2 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still though, why is my article getting deleted immediately whenever Red Abbott has been up for almost 20 years. Danimations2 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danimations2 On the surface, it's because Red Abbott has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, while Needlepeen hasn't. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred What is considered a reliable source? Also the wikipedia article literally only has 4, one of which is the bands own website, and the rest are dead links nowadays. Danimations2 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danimations2 This discussion is for the the Needlepeen article. If you don't understand WP:Reliable sources after reading it, ask for help at your user talk page, or leave a message at mine. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred I read it and it seems to agree with my points overall about Red Abbott, they mention deprecated sources should not be used, and neither should sources connected to the subject. Now I think either both should go down or both should stay, since this seems like a very similar case. Danimations2 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danimations2 With only one presumptive reliable source (there's a gateway error on the website), Needlepeen is on shaky ground with respect to notability. By contrast, the coverage of RA, as well as what the reliable sources document, establish notability there. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danimations2 As C.Fred said, this deletion discussion is about the Needlepeen article, not the Red Abbott article. If you believe Red Abbott should be deleted, you can nominate it. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Youtube, Reddit, Bandcamp and social media is all I find for coverage. Zero coverage in Gnews, perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no sign that this passes WP:GNG. I've tried looking for the LA Times interview in the WebArchive but they don't have it (which is kinda weird since most LA Times articles are usually archived). The article suggests that the band is notable for being "one of the first internet bands" but the latter have been around for 25 years. Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I questioned that too. Heck we had Weezer on the Windows 95 installation CD back in the day and that got distributed online. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also noticed that this is not even close to one of the first Internet bands; see that WP article to find that such acts have existed since the late 1990s while this one formed in 2023. So what does Needlepeen have other than their own false belief that they pioneered something? Nothing but their own social media and basic streaming directory services. They do not have the reliable media coverage that is required here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 🤓 Danimations2 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who communicates with only emojis may not be qualified for an in-depth discussion of Wikipedia policy. Just sayin' (with words too!) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 You're right I'm probably not qualified for it since I don't use this website constantly. I just wanted to create a page for a band I enjoyed. Danimations2 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le epic Reddit chungus hates le emoji JM99 Official (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing of notability in the article apart from a dubious, unsourced claim of being 'the first internet band'. If you removed the WP:PUFFERY there would be nothing left. InDimensional (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (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.