Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peach Pit (band)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Peach Pit (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article with some advertorial undertones about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry an article. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to attain certain specific quantifiable achievements that pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion for an article to become earned. And the sourcing here isn't cutting it, either: of the five footnotes present in this article, two are primary sources (their own self-published Bandcamp profile and a Spotify stream) and the other three are blogs, which means that exactly zero of them are notability-supporting sources. This is possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when their notability and sourceability have improved, but nothing here is enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Note They definitely fit WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 4. http://circuitsweet.co.uk/2017/09/peach-pit-announce-2018-european-tour-debut-album-being-so-normal-out-now-on-kingfisher-bluez/ Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a blog, not a reliable source, and the "article" is the band's own press release, so it doesn't constitute evidence of notability under either #1 or #4. NMUSIC #4 is not automatically passed the moment a band's own press releases announce that a tour is happening — it requires real media (e.g. music magazines or newspapers, not blogs) writing and publishing their own independent editorial content (e.g. actual concert reviews) about the tour. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - the link above is to a thinly-disguised press release. WP:NMUSIC criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree with the comment that #1 or #4 are met per cited references; that is self-generated coverage in an unimportant source (a blog). I could only find similar small time, run-of-the-mills, routine coverage and reviews that conveys existence, but not notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just perusing AfDs today, immediately recognized this band name due to this song. Surely I would never write an article that touts an artist using the phrase "melds teen angst with bummer summer vibes", and I can't say I understand which music websites are now considered notable for indie bands other than Pitchfork, but they do have a fair amount of that type of coverage, e.g.,, , , , , , which suggests notability.  I mean, perhaps they aren't as good as our favorite Soundcloud rappers, but this is some decent coverage.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NMUSIC specifically deprecates university and college newspapers as unable to support musical notability, so the Kenyon Collegian is out of the running, and The 405, Counteract and Khaosod English are blogs, so they're out of the running. Of those six sources, the only ones that are worth anything at all toward NMUSIC #1 are BeatRoute and The Georgia Straight — but those both represent local-scene coverage in the band's own hometown local media, not evidence that their notability has expanded enough to pass NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is a blog anymore? I don't know. These aren't the personal blogs of old.  Some of those like the 405 come up under Google News results, not that that is dispositive.  I will also note that the youtube video I linked has almost 10 million views, in case anyone thinks this AfD is occurring in 2006, when it would be a good argument.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of views received by a piece of content on YouTube is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria — no number of likes or followers or views or retweets on any social networking platform confers any sort of free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG just because it's a big-sounding number. And as for "what is a blog anymore", being published to WordPress is an automatic yellow caution light in and of itself — it is sometimes used by real reliable source publications as the content management system for their web presences, so it's not an automatic deal-breaker in and of itself, but the moment you see WordPress you always have to check for other evidence as to whether there's a real trustworthy media organization of some description behind it or not: can you locate a masthead of staff contributors, or does it appear to be a one-person operation that solicits user-generated content submissions? Does it also publish a print edition, or is WordPress the only form in which the title has ever existed at all? Does its content actually read like real journalism, or does it look suspiciously more like press releases? That sort of thing. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2018 (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.