Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Weeps


 * 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. WP:NOQUORUM Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

April Weeps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBAND. All sources appear to be either their own website or other promotional sources. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Criteria for musicians and ensembles states that the "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", where the criteria number 11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.") is applicable to the band in question. They are in rotation of the Slovak National Radio (RTVS) alternative nation wide broadcast (Radio_FM). Also the article was expanded with more non promotional citations. I hope, that the commission will take this fact in consideration. Erikputz (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NMUSIC criteria are not passed just by asserting that they're passed — you can't just claim that they've been placed in rotation by RTVS and have the article get kept just because that claim was made. You have to reliably source that the claim is true before the criterion is passed. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The magazine Valhalla (citation number 13 and 17) is also independently generated. Erikputz (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * comment sourcing is not great, too many user-generated sources ... anyone able to go through and sort out the RSes from the blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation number 15 is from a band independent magazine. Also they were available in the the print version, however I did not wanted to link their Facebook page and could not upload the image itself for copyright reasons. Here is the article scanned: https://www.facebook.com/AprilWeeps/photos/a.148684108508746.26791.107185332658624/792156417494842/?type=3&theater.
 * You can't go with two independent sources and 17 primary ones, and say that WP:GNG has been met. While primary sources can be used sparingly for additional confirmation of stray facts not covered by an RS — e.g. in a BLP you can cite the subject's own primary website for basic biographical details, like where they were born or what university they attended, that might not make it into the media coverage — but the reliable, independent sources have to be more than half, ideally as close as possible to 80 or 90 per cent, of all the sourcing.
 * That said, we actually don't have any rule that the sources have to be web-published, such that it would be necessary to directly upload a scanned image of a newspaper or magazine article anywhere — while we certainly like to provide a convenience link to a web-published copy of the content when possible, you can cite print-only sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles or books, without linking to a web copy. I don't know whether there's enough print-only coverage out there to make the difference between an NMUSIC pass or fail here, but if some more print-only coverage does exist you are allowed to cite it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * New reference added from independent magazine. Erikputz (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.