Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inglorious


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Inglorious

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a band with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; the only source present here is the band's own website, and the only discernible claim of notability ("and Scorpions guitarist Uli Jon Roth") is actually a misrepresentation of what the website says: Roth is not a member of this band, but rather this band's leader once worked with Roth in an entirely unrelated capacity. But notability is not inherited, so that fact doesn't transfer a notability freebie onto this band. (And while this isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does warrant mention that every single existing link to this title is expecting a racehorse, not a rock band who only just released their debut album.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability and sourceability get stronger than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Basically nothing imaginably better here with no solid URLs aside from their own website, clearly not even any minimal signs of notable material. SwisterTwister   talk  07:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frequently played on British radio rock stations. In this instance, not just a vanity article for a NN band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per NMUSIC, "playlisted on radio" only counts as a notability claim in and of itself if (a) it can be referenced to a reliable source, and (b) the radio service that playlisted them is a national network, such as one of the BBC Radio services. It can't just be asserted, but has to be shown and sourced in a manner that neither the article nor your comment has even attempted. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you do realise that a radio programme is a source in its own right? You don't need another media source to confirm a media source; that would be like saying you need an entry in a book to say something is written in another book for the latter to be a valid source. A common misconception, sadly, but rubbish nonetheless. Oh, and I would say that Planet Rock is sufficiently notable for NMUSIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do still require sourcing to verify a claim that a band has gotten onto the radio. Anybody can claim that anything was broadcast on the radio — I could, for instance, claim that my brother's garage band got a song onto CBC Radio 3, and without a source for that information you would have no way to prove whether or not I was lying. So we have to be able to verify that it really was broadcast in some capacity, such as a publicly-accessible archive of that radio content or some other media outlet writing about the broadcast, because it's a claim that can be falsified. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I could also claim I had found an obscure book that included relevant information. This, of course, would be a perfectly acceptable source and good faith would be assumed, although this too could obviously be falsified if I had the mind to do so. What makes one acceptable and the other not? Why would you AGF on a print source and not another media source? It is a fundamental WP tenet that internet sources are not the only acceptable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because with a book, it's possible (through libraries, WorldCat, amazon.com, archives, etc.) to verify whether said book really exists or not — a book that isn't possible to locate through any of those channels does get deprecated as a questionable or unverifiable or possibly faked source. Print content, whether web-accessible or not, still exists in hard copy form which can be tracked down and verified in some capacity — even if we have to go to a library to dig out microfilms, we can determine whether The Globe and Mail or The New York Times or The Times of London printed a particular article on January 27, 1846. But broadcast content is ephemeral, disappearing into the ether forever five seconds after it's happened unless some sort of record of that content is maintained somewhere — such as another source writing about the broadcast, or an archived copy of the broadcast existing somewhere verifiable. No notability claim on Wikipedia can ever be passed just by asserting it — if it's impossible for us to verify the claim's truth or falsity, then the claim itself can't get a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing about this band is notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America1000 07:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – Here are some sources, but some may be unreliable:, , , . North America1000 19:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.therockshow.co.uk/downloads/index.html - this is a source to show that the band have been on a syndicated rock radio show, and continue to be played by many other stations. User:trs_bigjim

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.    </li> <li></li> <li> This is a detailed concert review.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Inglorious to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.