Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The EX Box Boys


 * 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. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The EX Box Boys

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AfDs for this article:  The article was deleted before under a subtly different name. See the previous discussion. Normally this would mean speedy deletion, but so much time has elapsed that I cannot determine if this was simply recreation of deleted material, or if a more substantial effort was made.

Even so my original deletion rationale is as relevant today as it was then: "While individual members may play in bands that may be notable, and while the "XBox/Ex Box" link appears at first sight to be notable I believe that this band does not currently make the notable bands list."

Looking at the citations in the current article I see none that pass the WP:RS test. My own researches have revealed none. So I conclude that this is, once again, a fan article about a non notable band. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE please that (as nominator) I have re-read the article as it stands today. I have changed my opinion from delete to neutral, and feel that a fuller consensus than that which is emerging at present is required to do this discussion justice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  14:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't see how they qualify for WP:BAND. Bands like these can be notable, see The Minibosses, but this one doesn't seem that way. Pcap ping  14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although the band claims to be signed with a record label, they haven't actually released anything (and the record label is redlinked, which can't be good). The PRWeb reference appears at first sight to be evidence of notability, but the entire website is just advertisement and press releases. Basic case of WP:BAND. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you read the article you'll see that Microsoft legal issues keep the band from earning a profit, which means no US marketing. No selling on iTunes. No American tours. And basically no interviews, and no major label support. This doesn't mean that the band isn't popular and extremely notable, just that it's harder for Wikipedians to find nice juicy sources :). My argument: Pcap helpfully pointed out that a similar band, The Minibosses, has an extensive entry. However, note The EX Box Boys are fourteen times as popular as the Minibosses on Myspace. That's the Minibosses less than half a million to the Ex Box Boys' 7 million views. I understand Myspace isn't a citable source, but at some point sheer popularity over-rides the lack of media coverage. Sloggerbum (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I understand the point you're making, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanzine. Popularity is interesting, but it is not encyclopaedic. We require notability and verifiability, not popularity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Valid point - verifiability has been a pain on this page, but I do believe the band is culturally relevant, and I'd hate to see them overlooked because they aren't marketed in the states. However, I looked again and while most sources aren't valid, there's an excellent article in The Kirkland Reporter which actually covers most of the band. Would editing the page to include only facts from this source be enough to save it from deletion? Sloggerbum (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All I have to offer on that is to suggest that you read WP:RS and WP:BAND in detail, and that you recognise that the material there may be sufficient or insufficient. It is for the consensus here to judge, so go to it and cite that article well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although The Minibosses are a similar band, they have five albums - but most are self-released - and, according to the article, won some bogus award on the Phoenix New Times. Mind, the Phoenix New Times seems to be little more than a local tabloid. If the Ex Box Boys had been able to actually release something, it'd probably allow them to pass WP:BAND, but I still don't see any way around it. Technically, WP:BAND is a guideline and can be ignored, but we'd hit verifiability issues because we're only really taking our popularity statistics from myspace, which brings us back to the same problem. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I just updated the page so that the main references are another third-person article and the local news story, and I think that helps with some of the verifiability issues. Going off your Minibosses description, they do sound fairly similar, though the X boys are clearly lacking in officially released albums. 71.132.196.92 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the references have been reduced to just the legit third party sources. Sloggerbum (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have done a good job creating a decent article from no real source material. I fear the closure of this discussion is likely to go against you despite all the hard work you have put in, simply because we need both notability and verifiability. If I am right I think the closing admin should first move the article in its then final state to your userspace to ensure that you have the best basis for enhancement as full references become available.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor, and I see your perspective, but at the same time the references ARE now valid, and I still believe notability is very evident. I'd appreciate if a few more people could throw in their ideas on the matter. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need more people to look at the article and add to this discussion. I think it should not be closed in any haste. I agree that the references are valid, I'm just not sure they are sufficient. On the basis of the work you've done I'm going to change my opinion (above under the nomination) to neutral. I think the procedural discussion and the consensus of the community is well worth achieving here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete does not appear to pass WP:BAND at this time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets verifiability standards, upholds #s 1, 6, (and arguably 7, 9, 10) of WP:BAND, and doesn't meet others mainly because of constraining legal situation Sloggerbum (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, you're aware you already voted, right? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND and just not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (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.