Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soma Sonic (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Enigmamsg 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Soma Sonic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A duo artist band of lounge, house and dub music. Besides one source provided from Exclaim magazine, the rest are either listing or from IMBD user generated content. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS to back WP:MUSICBIO requirements.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hmm. There are two reviews from Exclaim, a short bio at Allmusic and...not much else. I don't think there's quite enough to meet WP:BAND or the GNG. Sorry. — sparklism  hey! 16:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing claimed here is a strong enough WP:NMUSIC pass to override how weak the sourcing is. Placing songs in TV shows is not a free pass over NMUSIC #10 just because you can technically source the placement to the episode's IMDb page — it's the amount of media coverage they do or don't get for placing songs in TV shows, not the nominal verification of song placements via primary sources, that determines whether placing songs in TV shows gets them into Wikipedia or not — but nothing else here shows or properly sources that they would pass any other NMUSIC criterion either. The Exclaim! reviews and the Allmusic blurb are a start, but they're not a finish all by themselves if they're all you've got, and no other footnote here counts for squat. Technically speaking, there's nothing here that's different enough, in either the substance or the quality of the sourcing, to exempt this from being speediable as a recreation of deleted content, either. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.