Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition Fight Music


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Coalition Fight Music

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for 64.30.196.253, who attempted to nominate the article for deletion here. Their rationale, as included in the template, is included verbatim below (with the timestamp of the edit noted). On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a mess, no reliable, independent third-party references that give significant coverage as a primary topic to the subject of the article. 64.30.196.253 08:11, 7 November 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Keep. This group's association with UCMMA appears to fulfill WP:NMMA(mixed martial arts notability), plus aspects of WP:ENTERTAINER (parameter #3 large fan base/significant cult following - official YouTube channel has 110,000+ hits) plus WP:BAND, specifically BAND's parameter #10 (performing theme songs since their work is broadcast in the UP and US as part of PPV broadcasts) and #1(interviews not just press releases, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: AfD rationale as posted is duplicate of an expired WP:PROD dated June 2011. Article much improved since the initial (June 2011) PROD notice as can be seen from the June 24, 2011 version to the present version. (Also, article had another WP:PROD notice errantly placed on it early this month, it should have been nominated at that time for an AfD instead.) --Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This entry is entirely promotional. Lacks objectivity, notability, also sources are not independent or reliable, reliability is especially questionable when coming from interviews and press releases as this would not be a 3rd party. This belongs on the band's website or facebook, but not as a wiki article. 64.30.196.253 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a Wikipedia guideline against using interviews as sources. Is there a specific rationale regarding the statement that the subject is not notable?  Since the AfD tag was placed on the article, unsourced assertions have been removed, many references have been cleaned-up or removed and so on.  This is the article's present version, but this is what it looked like when it was nominated for deletion.  I am sure there is further improvements that could be made, short of deleting the article.Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I believe this AfD was brought to my attention because I am the article's creator. Since I have stopped working on it, many false statements have been included in this page. To clarify, when I renamed this article to Coalition_Fight_Music, I did not include the AfD text. I don't know what this means as to whether this is first or second nomination, but this explains the confusion. I agree that is promotional and poorly sourced. AwayEnter (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (There really isn't any confusion - as the article's creator, you were automatically notified by the Wikipedia system when the article was nominated for deletion by 64.30.196.253 on 7 November.) I'd be interested in knowing how many of the references are poorly-sourced and exactly which statements are false. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Shearonink (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL; sourcing problems. TBrandley 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Promotional Puffpiece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 16 November 2012 (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.