Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Razer


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Love Razer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utterly fails NMUSIC and GNG. Only sources available are blog posts, obscure music genre fan sites, or websites for very minor local events they played at. Could not find a single independent reliable source for the band itself. Their so-called "best album" claims are in fact from random fan/non-reliable music blogs, or "reader's top xx" type of polls. PK650 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaking to Notability_(music), criteria for Musicians and Ensembles, article 1, nominator says "Could not find a single independent reliable source" however Huffington Post, iHeartRadio, and Windsor Life Magazine (A print publication which ran a two-page spread on the subject) are all clearly sited in the references. ArteSonora.pt is based in Portugal, was established in 2008, has over 32,000 facebook readers, and is another example of a completely independent and international source. SleazeRoxx.com has been around since 2002, almost 18 years, with 23,000 facebook readers. DecibelGeek.com has been a blog/podcast combination since 2011, 9 years, with over 1 million downloads of the podcast surpassed in 2017. These may be "obscure music genre fan sites" but they are nevertheless independent from the subject, and well established reliable sources of editorial content for those fans. It is my belief that these sites meet the standards set forth in Notability. The Article itself also went through the Articles for Creation process and was therefore vetted, approved and subsequently published by a user with over 13,500 contributions (OxonAlex), proving it was not solely the Article's creators who felt it met the notability requirements at the time of submission.Goldrecorddaddy (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that the purpose of Articles for Creation is to identify articles that "will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". This, of course, is subjective, and the crux of much discussion lately. Facebook readership unfortunately has no bearing over a source's reliability; in fact, it might even be disadvantageous. As for the particular sources you listed: see WP:RSPSOURCES. Huffpost contributor posts are generally considered unreliable. iHeartRadio is merely a paragraph stating their song was played at a sports match. Windsor Business Magazine (I can't access the online version for some reason, but this article might or might not have been printed) is a minor local publication (its website confidently states approx. 70k distribution). Interviews also aren't usually regarded as solid, nor are "staff" or "readers' picks", which this article rampantly boasts of. Other sources include this one, which is actually about a motorcycle charity event. All in all, I think sources available clearly point to no extensive coverage for a non-notable musical group. If you must brandish sources like those selected above, then evidently you're likely to be seen by any sensible editor as a local group that's seeking Wikipedia inclusion as a springboard to more coverage, etc. My comment re there being no sources was referring to the fact that no good quality sources could be found by my personal search outside those listed within the article. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I must point out that this was reviewed a day after I received the permission. I haven't looked at the article again, but it could have been a bad decision by an inexperienced reviewer.  Oxon Alex    - talk  (AFC reviewer of article) 15:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, buddy. I am learning about Wikipedia every day, and in any case this would reinforce the notion of AfC's importance. Discussing notability is healthy and very much needed both as a mental exercise and as a precedent-building procedure. As stated above, I think the objective of AfC being to gauge whether an article would survive such a discussion has been met in the sense that we are now having that same discussion! Glad to hear your thoughts. Best, PK650 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Just reviewed at WP:NPP. They have been going for 4 years and not made it yet. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BAND. Personally I don't think it is case WP:TOOSOON as their music is too generic.  scope_creep Talk  01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if their notability claim and sourceability improve. Passing GNG is not just a matter of showing that three hits of media coverage exist, and therefore the band is automatically exempted from having to actually have any notability claim more substantive than "media coverage exists" — GNG also takes into account the depth of coverage, the geographic range of where the sources are coming from, and the context of what the topic is getting coverage for. Bands are a topic that can frequently show a few hits of purely local coverage in purely local interest contexts in their hometowns, even while having no national profile and no extralocal coverage — see also city councillors, school board trustees, owners of non-chain local restaurants, high school athletes, winners of local poetry contests, etc. — so we don't just count the number of footnotes that represent real media outlets and keep anything that gets to three, we consider other factors as well. But the Windsor Star is the local newspaper in their hometown; Windsor Life is a local-interest magazine; the "iHeartRadio" source is really from CIMX-FM, a local radio station in Windsor, and does not reify into nationalized coverage just because 89X happens to be owned by a national media conglomerate; and while the Huffington Post can be a useful source in some contexts, it's weakened here by the fact that the HuffPo citation's author is the same blogger who's responsible for seven of the bad footnotes to blogs, which means it's here in the "HuffPo as group blog" sense rather than the "HuffPo as aggregator of syndicated real news" sense. So this simply is not enough coverage to exempt them from having to get over one or more of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2019 (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.