Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound Unlimited


 * 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sound Unlimited

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A former hip-hop group, released a few singles, but only sources are a couple small newspaper blurbs, and a messageboard post. POSSIBLY notable, but leaning towards no. Only claim to notability is being signed. Jmlk 1  7  08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it doesn't seem like they are really know for anything other than being signed as the first Australian hip-hop band. However, this could be merged into the Australian hip hop article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added a number of sources to the article and added fact tags where needed. The band appears to have been a significant step in bringing Australian Hip Hop onto the national and international stage. Fosnez (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Independent sources and minor notability. Could be merged into another article like Kristjan Wager mentioned. However unless sufficient expansion is done on this article I believe it will be deleted the next time around. - Jahnx ( talk )


 * Comment I don't think i would class their notability as minor. They were the first internationally signed Hip Hop band from Australia, one of only two in the 1990s. They have been mentioned in a number of google scholar articles. There are Google News and Google Book Search results for the band. I think notability has been establised (I.E. Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject). Fosnez (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment First, don't use google to determine notability. Second, the article is riding its entire notability on the first australian band being signed by the major record label. It would be safe to say they have notability but other than that, its lacking severely. Hoever since the full Discography was added I think this article is safe for a while. - Jahnx ( talk ) 11:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sound Unlimited Posse were huge in the early 1990s, which is that strange post-historical, pre-Google period it's hard to find online references for. "Kickin' to the Undersound" debuted on the Australian ARIA charts at #33 and got up to #20, - a Top 20 hit is notable enough surely, in addition to their major label signing. The "messageboard post" reference is an article from Ministry, a major music magazine. --Canley (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep adequately establishes notability. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes Wp:N. Twenty Years 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSIC. &mdash;Moondyne click! 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep conforms to wp:music #5. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies notability requirements as outlined above. Dan arndt (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on why Keep is warranted. Firstly, I think the person whom nominated this, did so in bad faith. Secondly, regarding the comment to "(not use) google to establish notability. Well... it appears that google was used to question notability. It goes both ways! Encise (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its ok man, chill... no reason to get pissed, nominations like this happening all the time (with no offence intended to the nominator), thats why myself and my buddies at The Article Rescue Squadren Posse monitor the AfD queue for articles that can be rescued from deletion. It happens more often then you would think. Also, as the article's creater you are more than welcome to contribute to the AfD debate. You probably have the strongest ability to argue for the keeping of the article because on your knowledge of the subject. Commenting on an AfD for an article you created is not a Conflict of Interest. - Fosnez (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (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.