Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation of Sound


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Innovation of Sound

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. A non-notable band, the topic shows no hits on Google News. Nothing on Allmusic.com. A standard web search only comes up with stuff on MySpace and Facebook, etc. The only cited ref in the article is to a Facebook page. Matt Deres (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7 (lack of significance). I could not find any independent sources even trivially discussing Innovation of Sound. This is a garage band. NJ Wine (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found one source from a local paper. Matt's science sounds superb from the Coventry Evening Telegraph. No vote at this time. Th e S te ve  06:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article creator (and member of the band) has provided a number of putative sources to expand the article, including the one listed above. Every one is either from a blog or is just a passing mention - or both. I've explained why they're not suitable to build a good article out of and also appraised him of the issues with COI, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I'm seeing nothing meeting the WP:IRS standard in a reasonable search. If the only applied sources are Facebook refs, it's clearly too soon to consider this subject notable enough for inclusion. Likely promotion. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 16 June 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.