Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandroid


 * 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 keep. Meets WP:BAND criterion 2 as Billboard has listed on of its albums as reaching 20 on the charts and the (single?) "Scandroid" is listed by Billboard as having reached 5th position on the charts. Also meets criteria 5 (had 2 albums released on FiXT Music) and 6 (was created by Klayton and contained Varien at one point). With that said, the number of social media links on the article is concerning, however, it meets the criteria regardless. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Scandroid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Notability clearly states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

This means that even if it doesn't follow the general notability guideline on the page, you can use the subject-specific guideline to create the article. In this case we would be using Notability (music). There are 12 different possible criteria for musicians and ensembles, Scandroid fits both criteria 5 and criteria 6. Both can be applied to Scandroid; therefore this deletion is unnecessary. The article simply needs to be edited to supply more information. I've already explained twice in the Scandroid Talk page why I believe they fit both criteria. cssc 14:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)
 * Plus criteria 2, which I have sourced to the best of my knowledge. --152.20.131.171 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking criteria 2 right now, currently I have evidence that Scandroid has topped digital charts over and over on Amazon and iTunes. However I understand wiki guidelines require more.
 * Scandroid was charted on Billboard as #5 in the USA for Top Dance/Electronic album on Dec 3rd 2016. This should warrant that criteria 2 is being met as well as criteria 5, and 6. cssc 14:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)
 * WP:BADCHARTS. Neither iTunes nor Amazon are charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And Billboard? ^^^ Topped at #5 on Top/Dance Electronic. Also it's been added recently to the Scandroid article that they topped on Heartseekers Albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That generated so much press for them though. Where are the feature-length articles about the duo? That's what GNG requires. The other criteria simply states that the subject may be notable if the criteria is met. It never claims that the subject is notable. The longest piece I've found in a RS is https://www.allmusic.com/artist/scandroid-mn0003455671/biography and that claims it's a solo project of Klayton's, so merge and redirect there at best. It also means that there are not two notable subjects in the band. Not even https://www.allmusic.com/album/scandroid-mw0002991393 is a review, just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to get snarky, remember you are suppose to be a neutral party. Is that not one of the rules? The project is currently a solo project yes, because Varien left to focus on Varien back in August of 2014. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that criteria 2 and 5 are still met. The project has topped charts on Billboard, and has produced two albums, three remix albums, two singles, with another album debut coming next week. If you want to get technical, even the notability guidelines state that something doesn't necessarily need to have fame, importance, or popularity. Those things simply add to popular opinion on the topic. cssc 16:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)
 * Sarcasm not snark. Neutrality is for the content in articles, not needed when discussion the lack of notability of a side-project for a band and whether its notable or not. Take the facts up with the author at AllMusic. GNG is not met and it must be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should still be neutral regardless, having a bias against a specific topic means that this deletion could be done out of bad faith. I don't want to believe that though. Anyways, this is going to continue to loop: GNG has two basic rules and this page meets the notability required for music as a subject specific category. The article is being rewritten and reworked in order to supply more information in regards to the topic at hand. That is all that there is. Deleting this article is not necessary as it still follows Wikipedia's MUSICBIO criteria. I understand that you, personally, would prefer more GNG and that will come with time. cssc 16:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Three clauses. One rule.
 * Significant coverage
 * in reliable sources
 * that are independent of the subject.
 * Thanks for the rewrite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Although you may not consider this subtantial, here are some stats: According to klayton.info/press/ there exists approximately 13 interviews regarding Scandroid, 38 features (both discussions on artists or features of a specific album/single), and around 16 reviews of numerous albums/singles. These are all approximations, as it is quite possible more exists. And with the release of Monochrome in one week there will be more press coverage. Many of these interviews, features, and reviews are independent of the subject, and are reliable based on their connection to their subsidaries. Yes they have to be weeded through, but you cannot justify deletion simply based off of this. Those music guidelines are put in place to help protect smaller artists from deletion too, that is why GNG does not always apply in regards to musicians and ensembles. Sometimes the only coverage that exists for smaller groups is social media, and local outreach. This is easily not the case here, as there have been individuals writing articles, interviews, and reviews of Scandroid for quite a while now. cssc 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) edit: reset for text wrap


 * Keep. A quick Google search found, , , , , . The coverage isn't stellar but is adequate, and a #5 hit on a Billboard specialist chart is a decent claim to notability. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree to Keep, I have been working on writing the entire article and rewriting parts of it to help meet the "GNG" demands. I still believe that, as the Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.". This article clearly met, and now even more so meets, the guidelines set out by Notability (music) and deserves to remain up. I'm still going to continue to work on the article, but I wanted to make my opinion/statement clear (once again). cssc 16:21, 25 October 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.