Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignition (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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, since the lack of reliable sources has not yet been overcome.Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignition (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The last AfD was closed too early. I noted that the subject of this article was not applicable for A7 speedy deletion, because some significance was asserted, and as such may if references are added pass WP:MUSIC criterion 1. Still it needs an AfD for consensus to be determined - and should not be speedied this time. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for causing all the mayhem here! I closed the first nom since someone else had placed an A7 tag on the page, and it got speedied just as the first AfD opened. Apparently, the A7 got overturned and I didn't notice; I thought the page had just been re-created, so I tried to tag it for G4 until I realized my mistake. Then I went back and reopened the first AfD -- but since this one's now open, I've re-closed the first AfD. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Now we should just get on with the discussion!--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the blame should go to my drunken otters. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to further confuse the clarification, er clarify the confusion, the article was never technically A7'd. It was nominated for A7, (never deleted), tag removed, Afd'ed, tag removed under the impression of a successful A7, subsequently G4'ed, tag removed, and now AfD2'ed.  Cheers!  :-)  All this to say, please consider the merits/lack thereof of the subject matter, and not the mess of deletion happy editors, myself included.   Keeper   |   76  20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh. I swear it was a redlink when I closed the last AfD... Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First don't swear, except at me. I've been working on too many CSD's today.  This particular band's article has been speedy deleted, in fact, 3 times.  I didn't see that when I pulled the speedy off the article, it appeared to have notability.  Yikes.  I recommend just letting the AfD run it's course though. NO NEED TO ADD MORE METHOD TO OUR MADNESS.  I would do better the rest of the day to type with my forehead instead of my digits...   Keeper   |   76  21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. They've got a few claims here and there, but I don't see anything that quite meets any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Of course, the generic name makes it hard to find sources, but even the use of keywords isn't giving me anything in the way of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let's look at WP:MUSIC criterion #1.


 * 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
 * 2) * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:
 * 3) ** Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
 * 4) ** Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
 * 5) **An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


 * To me, it looks like there should be some of such sources in existence if they have supported notable groups, were mentioned by NME and have a video on heavy rotation on MTV2 in the UK. But since I can't find any reliable non-trivial coverage at all, and none has been proven to exist, unless it is added, it's going to have to be delete as they seem to fail all other criteria of WP:MUSIC.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's valiant searching. I found nothing of consequence either.   Keeper   |   76  21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While the articles claims (if true and proven) would probably grant it notability, they aren't proven and hence can't be verified as true. I took a quick peek around the web via google and didn't find anything that could possibly corroborate the claims.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of verifiable sources for claims being made. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable band. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- E n d l es s D a n  14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article claims rotation on MTV2, coverage in well-known publications and touring, plenty to qualify them under WP:MUSIC. Citations for all that would be good, but given the article was only created yesterday, what about marking it as needing citations rather than rushing to delete. I know of at least one other band with the same name, so Google searches are tricky. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jimfbleak (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google search for "Ignition" band turns up nothing but MySpace and a few minor mentions. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  04:13, 22 January 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.