Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason & Julez


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mason & Julez

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest attempted notability claim here is of the "has X number of listeners on a streaming platform" variety, which is no part of Wikipedia's notability criteria at all, and the article says absolutely nothing else which would meet any NMUSIC bulletpoint -- and of the ten footnotes, four are just their music circularly verifying its own presence on Apple Music, Spotify or YouTube, which is not support for notability, while five are PR blogs that aren't reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. And while there's one site ("Celeb Magazine") that might be marginally acceptable, one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. In addition, it also warrants mention that when I saw this a few minutes ago, it was threaded through with a couple of dozen direct offsite links to Spotify for every individual song in their discography, right in open body text in defiance of WP:ELNO rules, thus bolstering the suspicion that the intent here was promotional. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping to get more opinions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting, it would helpful to get a sense of whether recent additions have changed this article for the better. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am the original writer of the article; since my last edit, a user added advertorialized content including the Spotify links. I have reverted the article to its original form; I will work on adding references. SaltieChips (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll still need to find better sourcing than blogs and YouTube and Spotify. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. SaltieChips (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I vote Keep; I don't have much to say other than deleting articles on the borderline of notability seems pointless to me. I'd cite the Copyright Alliance and CelebMagazine sources. Doesn't seem like anyone else is interested in stating an opinion, so close as no consensus? SaltieChips (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete BLPs, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  05:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without independent, reliable sources, this doesn't meet WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, nor any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2024 (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.