Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous Sinphony


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Infamous Sinphony

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * redirect from alternate capitalization, redundant (delete)
 * articles for albums by the band, obviously not notable if the band is non-notable (delete or userfy)
 * redirects from shuffling of article locations in mainspace (delete)
 * redirect from misplaced AfC creation (delete)
 * album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)
 * articles for albums by the band, obviously not notable if the band is non-notable (delete or userfy)
 * redirects from shuffling of article locations in mainspace (delete)
 * redirect from misplaced AfC creation (delete)
 * album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)
 * redirects from shuffling of article locations in mainspace (delete)
 * redirect from misplaced AfC creation (delete)
 * album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)
 * album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)
 * album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)

I'm unable to find any reliable sources on this band, other than their own website. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The author of this article came to IRC asking for help with image uploading, and has been 'in-and-out' trying to work on album pages (which I discouraged him from in preference to a discography in the article). I agree, there do not really seem to be 'findable' online references, however, the band's main period of activity was pre-web and they are 'listed' in various databases. My inclination was 'give it time' based, generally, on my 'vague' recollection that they were for a time marginally notable, but I have no real objection to a deletion if the consensus is for that. I suspect that an offline search of music magazines from the time period would find some sources, but I can't 'attest' to that, and I definitely can't 'claim' that the sources would be enough to establish notability. Basically, I'm just chipping in because I did have some involvement. I think this would be a good candidate for the WP:ARS people to take a look at during the discussion period, to see if more sources can be found by someone with access to tools such as HighBeam.
 * Essentially, this is a please don't speedy close before someone searches beyond Google !vote. Revent (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a listing on allmusic. I was unable to verify the existence of the label it was released under. All the listings in the various databases I can find seem to be crowdsourced, and generally extremely brief. I am unable to see if any of their work ever charted. In the article there isn't really any information around the first full album. The second album was released on cassette only, the third album had 1000 copies pressed. I don't think any notability is there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy. I can appreciate the difficulty in finding sources. It's pretty common- actually no, it's usually the norm that non-mainstream bands that predate the internet will have a lot of trouble when it comes to sourcing. It's almost always the case that the sources (if they exist) will almost always have never been uploaded to the internet. However, we can't keep an article based on the hope that off-internet sources exist. If someone can show proof that RS exist I'll change my argument, but right now this just doesn't have notability. Being listed in various databases does give off the hope that sources exist, but it's not always a guarantee. Sometimes people are in databases because a hardcore group of fans are meticulous about ensuring that they're added. But I see no reason as to why this can't be userfied until/if the point comes that sources are found. This does need some very slight editing to make this a little more neutrally written, as the tone in the article is a tad bit too casual in places. Phrases such as "However, the Infamous combination of talent, personalities, drive and dedication would see the San Diego based Infamous Sinphony enjoy a level of success that very few reached." come across a little more like a fan's perspective than a neutral entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * CommentThe language of the article, never mind the citations, concerned me a great deal when I first read it and after a quick Google search, I found out why. The "Introduction" section is a complete copy and paste from ReverbNation's Infamous Sinphony biography. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 04:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this, I've deleted the introduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. After having done some looking around I can't find anything that would suggest that this band is notable per any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Even with bands from the 80s (ie before the web), if they were notable or historically significant one can usually find some quality references that have come since the web took off. Not the case here. I see nothing wrong, however, with the creator or other interested party userfying it while doing an archeological dig for more info. - Wine Guy ~Talk  21:38, 19 July 2013 (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.