Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defused


 * 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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Defused

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

Nom - weak claims but no evidence of notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not signed to any major record label, no notable members, no national tour, etc. iTunes means absolutely nuttin'.  Graymornings (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Music Notability page you'll see that this band qualifies. On the Music Notability page it talks about worldwide radio play. And plus, in my opinion the iTunes thing does mean something, but I don't see that in the music notability page. XM638 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, iTunes isn't radio - it's Internet. Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I love how you don't even read the article but then try to get it deleted. Read it and look at the references. It has a link to the radio station's charts and whatnot. I'm fully aware that iTunes isn't radio. XM638 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read the article - it was silly of you to say that I hadn't since you obviously couldn't know. "DistortionRadio" - isn't radio.  It's an internet site.  And it's a very non-notable website at that.  And it's certainly not an indication of this band's notability.  Indeed, the "chart" page you've listed as a reference indicates a whopping 17 page views - two of them mine.  Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you acted like iTunes was a radio station, no need to get hostile with me... So I'm curious: The band has been heard by thousands of people worldwide on that radio, that's a cold hard fact that's right on the artists page, and that doesn't count as notability even when the Music Notability page clearly says it is? It's your opinion that Distortion Radio isn't radio, times have changed and a lot of radio stations are online radio stations, this includes XM/Sirius radio who gets a good amount of it's listners from the internet. They license professional music like every other radio station, this band got played, got heard by thousands worldwide. I think that well meets the Notability requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

If the references are the problem, I can gladly get more, but this band meets both of the criteria I have mentioned above XM638 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * References are the problem - we need more evidence of notability. If you can't find sources to back up your claims that this band is the "most prominent representative" of a particular style/scene, it's unverifiable. Additionally "major radio network" has a generally-accepted meaning, and a non-notable internet streaming site is not one of them.  Graymornings (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Distortion Radio is not a radio station, and to call it anything else is being disingenuous.  So I disagree that they meet the requirement of being placed on rotation by a major radio network.  What they have is their song being requested and played on a internet music streaming site.  I also fail to see any evidence that they are a prominent representative of a style or local scene.  If you have additional sources that demonstrate notability, by all means put them forward.  I can be convinced by sources.  But I cannot be convinced by mere assertion notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Music. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I understand where everyone is comming from. However, I do not agree with Distortion Radio not being a radio station or something note worthy and I strongly disagree with the page being closed because of this. I don't see anything on the Notability page that says internet radio or "streaming" disqualifies it. Internet radio sites have to license the music, program the music, have shows, and everything else that the frequency stations do. And I'm not sure what others believe, but a major radio network to me is a station who gets a good amount of listeners or is something that can be heard over a wide range. XM638 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In a context like this, a "major radio network" would be something like Clear Channel Communications or Pacifica Radio or the BBC. It doesn't necessarily have to be that huge, but certainly many orders of magnitude larger than Distortion Radio. I mean, just about any Joe Shmoe with a few hundred dollars can set up an internet radio station nowadays, including the cost of licensing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if I can get ahold of some good references that show that Defused has been heard on other stations that meet this and an online article from the band's town newspaper talking about them would that be enough references? What do I need to get exactly? XM638 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just go ahead and delete it for now, I will restart it when I get some really good sources. If that's ok XM638 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of meeting any of the WP:BAND 12 per above.  tomasz.  19:34, 20 January 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.