Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OceanLab


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OceanLab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promo article, undisclosed COI sockfarm. Pls take to SPI. Article itself - claim is dubious - remixes done by others, so worth taking to AfD anyhow. Widefox ; talk 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Erkrson (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC) I reviewed article and most concerns about content are invalid. Additionally, the article references a major electronic music group and deletion would detract from the Wikipedia experience. Erkrson — Erkrson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do you have a connection with either the subject, or the other accounts that have edited this article? Widefox ; talk 02:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: well-known in the electronic music world, charted. Vrac (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there enough secondary sources to build an article as it currently fails WP:V using (deadlink) non-WP:RS primaries (and that link is just the single per the Guinness)? Although WP:NBAND has 1 charting single, we can't write a band article based on just the height of a single - it may be better placed in the parent Above & Beyond (band) or as a notable single? It fails several of the other NBAND criteria like notable label. Widefox ; talk 02:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't usually vote on music AFD's because I'm not sure what constitutes an RS in that world, but I remembered this group so I just verified that it meets NBAND by charting, which should be enough to keep the article. As for the COI and sock issues I haven't looked into it. You could always list it at WP:COIN if you think the problem is serious enough for admin attention. Vrac (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N is necessary but not sufficient for having an article. WP:NOTPROMO (plug for my essay at WP:BOGOF, which details this). Widefox ; talk 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Had a UK Top 40 hit with 'Satellite' in 2004 (reached 19 in the UK Singles Chart!) 90.203.6.79 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Above & Beyond as the one single could keep this but it may simply be better mentioned there until a fuller article can be made. SwisterTwister   talk  05:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Above & Beyond (band). This is basically a side project of that group, and the verifiable details can be included there. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 12 October 2015 (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.