Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Market Hero


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Market Hero

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe this group is not notable, as I can find no reliable sourcing to verify the claims made. I had a brief search, which didn't turn up anything... --Izno (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Band is notable per WP:Band #6 - band members have been in other notable bands.  There is an entry for the band on Allmusic.  A Google search results in many hits for the band.  I agree that the article has unsourced claims, but per WP:ATD, the article should be improved/edited as an alternative to deletion.  --Rudimae (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Number 6 looks fairly unstable to me. I would have to even further trim it to keep the verifiable stuff, but even if the article is verifiable, that doesn't mean it has RSs... As for Google search, see WP:GOOGLETEST. The number of hits is not a factor of notability (though it increases the chance someone will find the reliable source that I am asking for!). --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized after I wrote that about Google that I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that because there are X number of hits that it means they're notable.  I meant a Google search provided links to other sites, such as Allmusic, that verify notability. --Rudimae (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Allmusic and Rockdetector entries are a good start. A few news items also.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic shouldn't be used as an RS except where the writer is known to be reliable. Can you prove that Corey is known for that? As for rockdetector, that certainly doesn't allow BMH to satisfy notability, as all it is is a mention, whereas the GNG (And MUSIC#C1) say that the group needs the reliable sourcing with in depth analysis to prove notability. Could you do me the favor of looking for any reliable source that would prove notability? --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic fulfils the requirements of being a reliable source, at least as far as the biographies and reviews on the site are concerned, and there is nothing in the link you provided to demostrate otherwise, and I don't see why their writers need to be independently proven to be reliable. WP:GNG says nothing about requiring "in depth analysis" and neither does MUSIC#C1; They require significant coverage in reliable sources. The band also passed MUSIC#C6 as they have several members from other notable bands (40 Below Summer - 5 albums, plenty of coverage) and Flaw (3 albums, major-label releases).--Michig (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:BAND (criteria 2–12); criteria 1 = It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. I do not have how to ensure that the information that is in the webpages of Allmusic and Rockdetector was not sent by someone related to this "band". C anniba  loki  19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic biographies are written by their staff. Rockdetector entries are written by the author of several published rock music guides, Garry Sharpe-Young. I don't really understand your reasoning.--Michig (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I raised the issue of the usage of allmusic.com as a reliable source on the appropriate forum on wikipedia Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The website refuses to correct glaring mistakes notably in getting it's credits and personnel listed correctly. One of their most experienced reviewers even claimed two artists with different names were one-in-the same artist, which was patently untrue. As experienced in the Palladium AfD not long ago, they even mixed up album releases from different artists. What's frustrating is they have a mechanism for reporting errors but they seem unwilling to correct their errors even when pointed out to them with citations. I think we need to revisit sometime what can be used as a reliable source for music article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: essentially a band in name only - no official releases. See my comments on allmusic.com above. JamesBurns (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A band that has toured and which is recording an album is not a "band in name only".--Michig (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - limited coverage, non notable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since this band contains several members from two other notable bands, deletion is really not a good idea. If the band contained members from only one notable band, with the amount of coverage they have received, mentioning BMH in that band's article would be a good option, but it would make no sense to add this to both the 40 Below Summer and Flaw articles, so the only sensible option is to keep this article here. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (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.