Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Black Stare


 * 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. czar 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jet Black Stare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pretty much an unknown band that released an album that didn't chart in 2008. Sources are insufficient in every way to demonstrate notability. I've already redirected the album article, In This Life (Jet Black Stare album), because it didn't chart and only had one source, About.com. Even their "official website" is a Myspace.com page. The one article that simply mentioned them was credited as "Staff", not even a name. Fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major label band that received enough coverage to have a short article, , , , ). Also made one of Billboard's crappier charts . It's always good to search for coverage before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk)
 * Comment References cited by Michig are weak on merit (the first two, in fact, are websites where anyone can create their own press), but I'll concede being on Island Records suggest its possible there may be something more out there. I suspect the disadvantage is that what legitimate references there are may no longer exists online. I'll await voting to give time for someone to provide a better reason for keeping this. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, people can't create their own bios and reviews on Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used to believe that too, Michig, but as was pointed out in another discussion anyone can submit their own words and materials to Allmusic. The site's own submission guidelines  explain how they draw their data from a second party, Rovi, who vet the submissions and then create original content. Note the third from the bottom paragraph: the editors give themselves license to reference and paraphrase artist supplied materials as a primary source. Which, when you think about it, makes sense when trying to compile data for lesser known artists for whom there might not be much independent press. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The key part is "Rovi's editorial policy is that all reviews, synopses, and biographies must written by their staff and freelance contributors, so they cannot simply copy and paste content supplied by artists and labels or studios." i.e. bios and reviews on Allmusic are *not* written by the subjects or their record companies. This is much per any newspaper or magazine, i.e just as reliable and independent as any other reliable independent source.--Michig (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that being on a major label guarantees "notability" by our standards. Most are, but that is not the same as a free pass.  The other sources are weak and/or self-published, as has been pointed out. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the sources I identified are self-published. Nor are they weak. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 and 4 were written by fans, unvetted, on sites that allow anyone to submit. I'm guessing that is the case here, as a professional writer would have bothered to at least use paragraph breaks.  Number 1 has the band opening up at the 3rd act, so I doubt the article passes "significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV.  The 2nd (and why can't you just link to the actual article instead of the highbeam, since it exists?  Useless to the reader.) is a decent coverage article. .  I'm still of the mind it doesn't pass GNG. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you still referring to the sources I identified above? 3 and 4 are Highbeam articles from the Deseret News and the Boston Globe (because I found them from a Highbeam search - if you found the original articles just link them here instead of bleating about it). 1 is a review from Allmusic, a site that does not publish user-submitted reviews (where do you get this stuff?). --Michig (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Un-notable and unnoticed, definitely not article material.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seems to be very little out there in terms of substantial coverage -- mostly just mention of the band, or at best a paragraph in a minor newspaper. The Boston Globe reference barely mentions them (the original article is at http://archive.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/07/24/3_doors_down_and_staind_power_up/ ) --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that the Globe is a solid reference... if you're 3 Doors Down. But a brief mention in the closing paragraph is hardly in-depth coverage. The Deseret source is definitely in-depth, but it's an interview, and therefore a primary source. Other than that only brief mentions, and scarcely few of those. Honestly, I surprised there isn't more coverage. Their song was used as a theme during a WWE event (which I suspect is why it made that one single "crappy" chart). There's not even enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very little info available online - close to zero reviews of the album. 52,970 views on a YouTube video, 12,221 FB fans, 1 Amazon review. Nothing indicates passing WP:MUSIC - one single that charted poorly on a specialist chart and independent articles on respected publications are seemingly very scarce. Rayman60 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 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.