Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeleton Staff


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton Staff

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this band meets the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. The only sources cited are music purchase sites and one power pop blog. Not enough per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are now several print sources given as references and many additional [long-standing and credible] blogs added as references. The links to purchase sites are given because they are the only online sources available to tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandower (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Jonathandower (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm in the process of cleaning up this article. So far very few of the sources look to be anything that would be a reliable source that shows notability. Some of the smaller blogs could be used as trivial sources, but that's about it. The purchase pages absolutely cannot show notability and they should never be used as sources. The only time I've seen them used as a source is for the occasional amazon page that has an extremely notable reviewer quoted on the page... and even then that's almost always used as a trivial source and is discouraged. Be aware that having lots of links does not make the notability concerns go away. You have to show that these links are reliable per Wikipedia standards.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete. Most of the links on the page were unusable as reliable sources since they were all from non-notable blog sites. Blogs can only be used as reliable sources when they're written by someone who is considered to be an established expert in the field and 99.9% of the blogs out there do not meet these guidelines. The only thing that looks vaguely usable is PowerPopaholic and that's still a relatively non-notable blog. A blog written by one of the chief editors of Rolling Stone magazine would be usable, but a blog written by an average Joe or Jane (regardless of how long they've been blogging) would not be usable. I did a search and other than some articles by what appear to be trivial sources, I don't see how this band meets WP:BAND. This band just isn't notable at this point in time. Also, I've discovered that Jonathan Dower (the article's creator) is also a member of the band. While it isn't against the rules to create an article about yourself, please be aware that it is highly discouraged because it's just such a big conflict of interest. This could be seen as advertising, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. The more I look at the PowerPop blog, the less reliable it seems. I'm going to run it through the reliable sources noticeboard, but I'm fairly certain that at most this blog can only be used as a trivial source at most and I'm doubtful that it could even be used thusly. It might be long running, but the blog is still non-notable as far as I can tell.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete: Not notable. Sources provided are not reliable (including PowerPopaholic), and a Google search turned up nothing that would establish notabilty. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd run PowerPopaholic through the noticeboard and sure enough, they said that the site wasn't considered a reliable source that could prove notability, so you're absolutely correct.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete. Fails to meet GNG or our music notability guidelines.  No bar, of course, to future re-creation of this new band, if/when it meets them in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (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.