Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris & Simo


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris & Simo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An egregiously spammy article from the same folks as Articles for deletion/JSS Medical Research: built by a series of SPA PR-style and possibly sockpuppet accounts; with at least one Montreal-based IP popping up to remove advert tag. I think enough is enough. I don't believe this duo meets WP:BAND. I see no significant coverage or releases, with a great deal of the mentions that do exist coming from the non-notable blog "Your EDM." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly WP:GNG notable  I agree that the tone is not encyclopedic, and should be muffled.  But the unrelenting and overboard fanzine style and wording merits a rewrite.  It is no reason to delete.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "No compliance with WP:Before"? As I stated in my nomination, and reiterate, I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. I ask the above editor to link to some significant coverage in reliable sources. Not links to sound files. Not passing mentions in blogs. Bona fide WP:RS. If it exists, I'll withdraw this. How is it ''Clearly WP:GNG notable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Paris Simo team Karen Hardingpublished in Vents Magazine. Found this easily on Bing.com. Haven't yet gone beyond this one.  But used "Paris Simo review".  Using the Wikipedia article creates a biased return on the Google search.  GIGO.  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's useful and I would agree that may be one RS. I will continue to search without the ampersand to see what else might be found. For example, this story about the same pairing with Karen Harding from the Uproxx blog, states "In a press release, the duo explain..." so I would not consider that to be a bona fide reliable source indicating notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * https://bythewavs.com/paris-simo-zombie-3lau-tomorrowworld-edit/ FWIW, I think that this kind of music has its own echo chamber. I know nothing about the group – I never heard of them before – but they seem to be well-liked in their genre.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a sound file with a short blurb. It does nothing to meet GNG nor BAND. Our personal feelings have nothing to do with the matter: I live in the heart of Montreal's arts district and have never heard of them nor seen anything about them. That's not what this nomination is based on, nor should opposition to this nomination be based on personal impressions. If they're as manifestly notable as you have claimed, we should have no trouble finding significant coverage of them in independent media -- not sound files or minor blogs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your personal information (or lack of information) is even less persuasive than "feelings." You do not have reliable sources saying they are unimportant in Montreal – your bare personal opinion with any sources butters no parsnips here..  In any event, if you bing.com "Paris simo electronic dance music"there sure are a lot of entries under "the web", "video: and "news."
 * The AFD seems to be based on an Ad hominem argument (fallacy) as to the contributors.
 * But as I don't have a dog in this fight, I'll leave it to other editors to chime in. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * well, I'm sorry but you've accused me of not having done a BEFORE search when I have. And I must say you don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what a WP:RS actually is. You've managed to find what may be one reliable source. I've no intention of replying to you further nor in withdrawing this -- and I too am interested in hearing from other informed editors on the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to(cordially) disagree. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete based on the current state of play. Leaving aside the assorted cattiness above, this is an article long on promotion and short on notability. A quick scan of search results suggests that that's the position it would be in even if entirely re-written. The fact that there's a bit of an "echo chamber" effect (which seems to be the case with a lot of up-and-coming musos, regardless of style, online these days) means that reliability and notability from outside of the chamber is required, and there really isn't any of that right now. I'll admit I can't claim to be overly informed beyond what I've written here, but if the opinion of an uninformed and uninvolved editor who's tried gamely to cut through the mischaracterisation of the issues above counts, then here it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not "accuse" you of anything. Simply commented on content and the AFD.  For me, at least, this is not personal.  Comment on the article, not the editors.  WP:AGF.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And neither did I accuse you of accusing me of anything. My comment is on the article, as well as on the debate that had been going on before I contributed, which is germane to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Moving beyond the back and forth above, there is little—dare I say nothing—here of notable substance among the 63(!) references. User submitted sites such as Beatport, Soundcloud, etc., listings and charts of digital activity and/or appearances, trivial mentions, and promo/press release coverage among insignificant blogs and websites. All of this confirms existence and an active internet presence, but no evidence of significant third party recognition necessary to establish Wikipedia notability. Truthfully, this should be an easy delete based on the feebleness of sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Your EDM is definitely notable but none of its sources cover the topic significantly. I tried finding some GNG sources on Google News but there were about only 5-6 about Paris & Simo songs and I don't believe those to be significant enough. The existing sources are mostly interviews and event listings. Fails WP:GNG. The tone can be fixed as the article can be re-written, it's not a reason for deletion. — Za  wl  17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing my vote in light of other examiners' comments.  WP:Too soon.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (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.