Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed up everything


 * 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. Consensus is delete. I have opted to give less weight to the arguments of the apparent meatpuppets. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Mixed up everything

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can only find passing mentions, no real coverage and no carting that I can tell. Fails GNG and NBAND. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NBAND. References are either not independent and reliable, or are trivial. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the best source I can find is the Daily Mail, then we're not going to able to write a substantial article. Yes, they've got a grassroots following and their videos have been viewed quite a bit, but we really need things to be at the level of Billboard and Rolling Stone coverage before we can write a comprehensive biography. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The Daily Mail article is pretty substantial and we might need to have a discussion on whether that rag qualifies as a reliable source. They have also been written up by the certainly reliable Classic Rock Magazine  and the major newspaper in their hometown . Those sources can also back up some factual statements in the article that current do not have a reliable source, such as being recognized by Offspring. I have no dispute with anyone voting to delete, and it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article about their few actual musical achievements, but they have gotten noticed for their unconventional busking success. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, in the event that the article is kept, it will have to be moved to a new title with proper capitalization. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd already reached consensus on the Mail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but assume good faith and just provide the link. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the link that I provided in the article after you said provide it in good faith but someone went behind me after that and deleted it again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698229/Meet-Australias-hard-rocking-Hanson-brothers.html --Derricklasaga (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of stuff about why we can't cite the Mail all over t'interweb - see here and here for starters. My all-time favourite "WTF" moment from the Mail is : "Using Facebook causes cancer". And I'm fed up with them smacking down Gina Miller every five minutes. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The main basis of creating an article for a band is due to them being noteworthy. I have provided proof that clearly shows Metallica, The Scorpions, Foo Figthers, No Doubt, Everclear, Robert Deleo (Stone Temple Pilots), Matt Sorum (Guns n Roses, Velvet Revolver), Live & The Offspring (the last of which is scheduled to perform with Mixed Up Everything in Melbourne, Australia in the future) all of which have shared Mixed Up Everythings covers with approval on their facebook/twitter pages and expressed their praise and approval. They have been written up by Classic Rock Magazine, The Herald Sun, plus multiple others. They have released their own debut album which classic rock magazine has mentioned and is available (physically or digitally) through Amazon, iTunes and others. The album was produced in a studio that has worked and is working with multiple other bands and they are on tour right now throughout The Czech Republic, Germany & The Netherlands supporting their album and playing live festivals, clubs and events. Their youtube channel as nearly 20 million views and they are at this point on the brink of exploding big. And What is your acceptable argument for stating that the Daily Mail is not reliable and independent? Provide proof for your argument with references that back up your claim. Provide proof of who exactly within the Daily Mail has personal connections with the band, that has something invested with the band in any way. Because without proving that, you cannot claim The Daily Mail is connected to the story or unreliable. And if you want to see my references for the facts i have states here then just refer to the articles references. And to add to this, according to the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" MEETS NOTE 1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries (Classic Rock Magazine, The Melbourne Herald Sun), NOTE 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (consult their website & the reference i provided in the article) & NOTE 7: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. (all of the media coverage i have provided here in mention and in the articles references points this out). So when you respond again with the claim that the article should fail please provide references that irrefutably proves WHY The Daily Mail is not acceptable AND why The Herald Sun Newspaper is not acceptable.
 * Delete. Fails WP:NBAND. I can't see that as reliable, independent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And do you see The Herald Sun as not reliable either? It is the highest circulating newspaper in Australia with weekday readership of 1.5 million and it's website receives 6.6 million visits per month. . --Derricklasaga (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Triplejunearthed.com is the website for the Australian Government owned radio station Triple J and it is a subsidiary for the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


 * Weak Keep The band does seem to have created a big and growing name for themselves, with a lot of famous artists approving of their work publicly. Doesn't seem as though the people who are voting to delete it are following guidelines as they do meet multiple criteria of media coverage, radio play and what with being on tour (why doesn't classic rock magazine, the herald sun, triple j radio count?)--Angelic Purple (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — Angelic Purple (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not a question of whether sources are reliable or not; broadsheet newspapers are generally reliable, but they also print a huge amount of stories and unless a group has sustained coverage across many years, and has prominent pieces in the likes of Rolling Stone and Billboard chart hits, it's difficult to write a neutral and balanced article that takes no sides and doesn't sound like a puff piece for the band. If it was practical to write a detailed article, we wouldn't need to be scrambling around for 3-year old news pieces and Facebook / YouTube links; we'd have a gamut of Rolling Stone and Guardian pieces we could easily pull from to write a well-balanced biography, rounded off with the various chart stats. Sure, if the group has a top ten hit, then they deserve an article here, but as it is, I think it's too soon to have something. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Mixed Up Everything have an undeniable following. The references all seem valid. And to Ritchie, who said "Sure, if the group has a top ten hit", I saw that they had their song 'Counterfeit' go to no.1 on the Triple J Australian charts for a week, just a month after the release of their album. . It's a keeper from me. --Sloth man01 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — Sloth man01 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For Australian charts, you need an Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) citation. See Record charts/Sourcing guide/Australia for more information. Do you know that this single was a hit in the ARIA charts? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I note that we have two newcomers voting here. I'm suspecting either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given they're all commenting as "weak keep" (which implies it's a marginal case and they wouldn't mind too much if the article was deleted, whereas the arguments are very much "strong keep"), that would seem to be the case. I don't think sockpuppetry is at play here; I think the AfD has been broadcast elsewhere on the net. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the band meets criteria's 1, 4 & 7 of the list: have been written up by multiple media publications and websites, are currently on an international tour, they have a #1 hit on official Australian radio and the band wants the article. Where is the basis left to delete this article? Even suggesting it go to a vote at this point violates the criteria of a band or musical group being eligible for having an article. And for the record, I am a Wikipedia contributor and have over 100 edits andthree articles so far in the last month. I may be new but this qualifies me to be counted as a contributor.--Derricklasaga (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There is a smattering of coverage in reliable sources (see also ), but I don't feel there's enough to support an article at this stage. No objection to it being moved to draft for people to keep working on it for a while, but if they don't progress further they wouldn't really justify having an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.