Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IM5


 * 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. Even after disregarding BO's WP:JUSTAVOTE, there is a weak consensus to delete. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IM5

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable boyband, doesn't appear to be coverage in any sources (that aren't related to founder Perez Hilton) - Created by Single Purpose Account - Speedy A7 correctly applied as the but removed in good faith as editor believed that article establishes the band to be notable based on who created it. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as WP:GNG. Non-Neutral, Nothing verified, probably falls under a WP:PRODBLP as well Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteI suspect they'll end up being the next Boys to Men (or whatever) given the people supporting this manufactured band, but for now, they're nobodies.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe the nominator looked very hard for independent sources. In two minutes, I found these:
 * Not related to Perez Hilton
 * Not related to Perez Hilton
 * Not related to Perez Hilton
 * Not related to Perez Hilton
 * Not related to Perez Hilton
 * I'm sure I could find more with more time. To be sure, IM5's notability may well be the result of a huge publicity push, but they do get coverage.  I have no love for manufactured talent such as this, but it is the current trend, and this particular version, with the backing of notable backers, is inherently notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources, The one that looks most reliable is artistsdirect but that has been considered not reliable atWP:RSN - Additionally #2 is not independent since they are developing IM5 for Fuller, Perez and King. Notability requires reliability non-trivial mentions (which these all are), and independence besides which they still fail WP:MUSIC, and still have the problem of the inability of creating a neutral verifiable article from these types of sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a weird one because there's little doubt they're about to become extremely notable (even allowing for WP:CRYSTAL, the people involved will surely mean coverage in reliable sources as soon as they actually release a record), but the lack of coverage now (and as it stands, their very existence isn't verifiable - it could all still turn out to be a hoax on Hilton's part, or something) means they don't meet the standard for an article right now. It seems counterproductive to !vote delete on something that's almost certainly going to have to be recreated down the line, but the alternative can of worms seems worse. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete BO ; talk 17:10, 18 April 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.