Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candela (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 no consensus. - Philippe 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Candela (band)

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


 * Delete- Band has nothing to assert its notability besides an advert bio in a latin perc mag, and an article on a latin music mag. Band is unknown and irrelevant Gregg Potts (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Band frontman may pass guidelines if he's appeared on records/toured with the people asserted.  However, notability is not inherited and so this band shouldn't be here. Booglamay (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC or perhaps Speedy Delete A7 for lack of notablility assertion. Either one works. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - they have an album on AllMusic.com, the same album is for sale on the iTunes Store, and a Google search brings up quite a bit of independent coverage. They're not extremely well known, sure, but certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, band leader is a notable musician, marginally notable band. References from reliable independent sources are provided. Does satisfy several WP:MUSIC criteria: independent coverage, notable musician, radio rotation. `'Míkka>t 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The references are all trivial coverage - ie press releases, and links to the bands personal website. CD is sold independently and is not notable. However, perhaps an argument can be made to make a page for the band leader, as he does look fairly notable.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only press releases. There are two bio articles referenced. However they are predominantly about the musician, so the latter suggestion sounds reasonable. I have thought about this myself. There are also San Francisco and Santa Cruz newspapers articles, no longer available online. `'Míkka>t 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a side note Mikkalai, I suggest you read Wiki's guidelines regarding self-published sources (namely the bands website) WP:SELFPUB.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a side note Greg, I suggest you read Wiki's guidelines regarding self-published sources (namely the bands website) WP:SELFPUB, section "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" `'Míkka>t 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mikkakalala. I think you need to re-read it. See point 3: the source can't be self-serving: "it is not unduly self-serving;" remember this is a band website -  a self-serving promotional tool, and should not be used a s souse beyond band members, and instrumentation details. References need to for unbiased. This is a pretty basic wiki guideline. See for WP:RS for more details. Gregg Potts (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to wiki guidelines on notability, a band must satisfy a least one to the criterion on the list. SEE: WP:BAND (Criteria for musicians and ensembles). Unless someone can find that this band has satisfied one of the criteria listed, there is no reason to keep this article beyond opinions reaching past the scope of this bands notability.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independent references exist: Latin Percussion and Latin Beat Magazine are respectable sources for Latin music info. I will try to find more.  Laudak (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's one: it's reprint of an article from Latin Beat magazine. I get the impression that this magazine is a fairly high profile source in this genre, but I don't know enough about Latin music to know that for sure. -- Hux (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * response But this is an article about Edgardo Cambon, and is not relevant as a reference for the band Candela. Considering nearly all the references are really about Edgardo Cambon, this seems like a case for a redirect and best. Thoughts?Gregg Potts (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A redirect to where though? "Edgardo Cambón" redirects to this article. If you think that Cambón himself is notable enough then maybe it would make more sense to just move the article to Edgardo Cambón and do a minor rewrite. -- Hux (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * response the one 'independent' reference is for one a member of the band, and don't involve Candela at all. Also, the reference is actually an advertisement and is hardly an appropriate source for unbiased information for a wiki article. This article is most likely written by one of the band members and is nothing more that self-promotion, and Wiki is not that place for this. Clear delete.Gregg Potts (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's obvious that you believe this should be deleted, but there's no need to keep restating that opinion and rebutting every contrary claim. You need to accept that possibility that you might be wrong on this. Let's at least wait and see if more evidence shows up. -- Hux (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * response If I have something to add, I will respond. This is a debate. Also if you read my response, you would see my response contains counter information to the claim of 2 references. It is important to state the facts here. Gregg Potts (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep. WP:MUSIC is but a guideline and cannot be applied to borderline cases, where common sense must rule. IMHO a band which played for 20 years with relatively notable artists and several CDs and aired on radio and TV, and info about it is verifiable is rather notable if considering how many people encountered it and might be interested in it. Mukadderat (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (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.