Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall II Rise


 * 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. czar 06:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fall II Rise

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable band.  scope_creep Talk  09:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Noting the comment on the talk page.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability Criteria
(Copied from talk page. Hopefully I'm doing this correctly.) I believe the band meets at least some of the following criteria. However, I'm new to Wikipedia so I do welcome input from others and discussion on the topic. I do realize the article has some problems as far as the actual writing goes, but that's more on me for not being an experienced writer, rather than the subject matter itself. Criteria I think are applicable: Moony483 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, publisheed works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. There are articles by major news outlets in Puerto Rico (Noticentro, Primera Hora), a featured segment in talk show Pégate al Medio Día, and an interview in Maximum Ink Magazine from Wisconsin. These are all in the references for the article.
 * (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. Their single End of Days was used for a couple of weeks as the theme song for Puerto Rican TV show WWC, which is the main wrestling show in Puerto Rico.
 * (11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Their single Four was played regularly on major Puerto Rican radio stations. I'm trying to find out if there's a log of what was played when, since there's no Puerto Rico music charts, our music charting gets lumped in with US as a whole, I believe. However, the radio play is mentioned in some of the references included in the article. This might take a good while to corroborate, I think I'll have to email the radio stations directly and ask if they have a link to an archive of some sort like that. It was about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure exactly, but I think AlfaRock (now AZ Rock Radio, they moved to online-only) may have been the main station to give them airplay, since it was the local rock radio station at the time.
 * You know musicbio. I know the WP:MUSICBIO. I use it almost every day. Where is the references that show the band is notable, e.g. reviews of work, WP:SECONDARY sources that can satisfy musicbio. Ref 1,2, 4,5,6 are non-RS, meaning they are non-notable. Ref 3 is an interview, but every new band gets interviewed and its a local magazine, indicating its a local band. Where is the coverage, the reviews, the secondary sources.   scope_creep Talk  11:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not a good argument and would borderline have been a reason to speedy keep this, if there had been no further discussion due to the talk page comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the first 13 references:
 * Ref 1,2,4,5,6, 10,11,12,13 are non-RS and can't be used to establish notability.
 * Ref 3: Its an interview. Looks like a blog. No editorial board. Effectively non-RS.
 * Ref 7 An annoucement that they are supporting Evanescence. Really poor.
 * Ref 8 Review of a Evanescence gig.
 * Ref 9 Data listing. Non-RS.

The rest are similar poor. The band is completky non-notable. There is no social media coverage. There is stream on Spotify, Apple Music, Soundcloud, Amazon and Napster. They are non-notable at this time.  scope_creep Talk  15:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. I have two questions, though. First, for references 10 - 13, I understand YouTube itself isn't generally considered a reliable source. However, the videos (if you look at them) are reuploads of content that was televised on a national TV network. I've been unable to find those episodes online, but the show itself is notable (has its own Wikipedia page) and in the videos you can hear the song playing. Is there a better way to cite that then? Simply saying those sources don't count seems kind of strange to me. Then my second question is regarding the airplay: it's been referenced in other places, but I myself don't know of a way to obtain tracklist records from 10 years ago (and as I noted, I've been trying to contact the radio stations about it to see if they can point me anywhere). However, that also doesn't mean that it didn't happen. What then? And a third question actually: is reference 5 non-reliable because of it being on YouTube? Because same situation as the wrestling TV show: it's content that was on national TV, the show is documented in the television network's own website (and still runs today actually), but I can't find the original video on their site so as to cite it from there. I have a similar issue with some radio interviews/shows (as noted in the article's talk page) where there are links on their Facebook page to the radio station's show, but the links are dead and I haven't been able to contact the station for a live link; however, that doesn't mean the interviews/shows never aired, it just measn I personally can't find them due to link rot. Naturally I understand the band themselves saying "we were interviewed" isn't reliable, but if the dead link is a link from the radio station's website and they're just sharing that, isn't that a third party?

I appreciate you taking the time to look over this and explain more thoroughly, because honestly I'm still just trying to learn and understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not attempting to discredit your knowledge, I'm asking genuine questions, that's all.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources presented are almost entirely social media and there is little more apparent in searching. The few other sources are mere mentions in RS, which cannot be considered to be evidence of notability. What coverage is significant is not in reliable or independent sources and what coverage is in reliable or independent sources is not significant. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eggishorn, who puts it well: none of the sources (either in the article or elsewhere) are significant and reliable/independent. The band thus fails the GNG, and there's no indication that any of the criteria at WP:NBAND are met. (Oh, and my apologies for relisting this a third time, which was quite accidental. Closers should, as always, feel free to close at any time without waiting another seven days.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2021 (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.