Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared & The Mill


 * 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Jared & The Mill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Article about a band which essentially just states that they exist, makes no claim of notability that would actually satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and is sourced entirely to their own primary source website about themselves and to an AllMusic bio. As always, the existence of an AllMusic bio is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia in and of itself -- their inclusion criteria permit any musical act that has released a recording, while ours are quite a bit more restrictive. So AllMusic would be acceptable as one source amid a diversity of reliable sources, but it does not get a band into Wikipedia by itself if it's the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per not satisfying WP:NMUSIC.--  Darth Mike (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by Michig. --  Darth Mike (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is clear from the rationale above that the nominator judged notability solely from the contents of the article, but notability is determined by the coverage that exists, not what is cited. A WP:BEFORE search could have found coverage from multiple sources, including, , , , , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable sources found for the notability 87.114.101.178 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as not only are the current listed links in the article unconvincing, the ones above literally contain event listings or interviews, and while that may be common in news, it still shows the bareness of no actual independent and substantial news, therefore I would suggest at least Drafting until we have better substance. One note is the fact the WashingtonCityPaper is not only in itself a local event guide, but the sentences are only a few sentences and, as followed, the other links are noticeably simply interviews or event listings (the first one is an event listing, for starters, as are followed by every until the end "[Band] comes [locally]"), focused with exactly that. Therefore, to answer the IP's comment above of the bare "Reliable sources for notability" is not the case if they are simply contents of interviews and event listings, which in this matter, are not substance because they are (1) simply words by the subject themselves and (2) event listings for local places. SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA, I specifically listed the concerns above and including the quoted information from those sources, hence I thoroughly analyzed this. SwisterTwister   talk  03:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Several of the sources provided above have in-depth coverage about this band, including its background, history, albums, songs, touring, etc. North America1000 18:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - WP:GNG or WP:BASIC if WP:NOT still applies, because WP:NOT is a non-negotiable policy that explicitly states unacceptable articles that are suggestive of being used as a webhost or a listing are not acceptable here and as I noted above, the listed quotes from those articles are literally mere interviews, none of it amounts to substance, especially since it's not independent. Once we no longer consider and apply WP:NOT, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia, and we simply become a social media page for every single WP:GARAGE and local band. SwisterTwister   talk  03:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – This band has received significant coverage in several in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Several of these sources provide in-depth coverage about this band, including its background, history, albums, songs and touring. North America1000 05:03, 14 November 2016 (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.