Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parselmouths


 * 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. Taking into consideration that the initial author also doubts the article's notability, I believe consensus here endorses removal. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Parselmouths

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. Original reason was:

''Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO to me. Google News returns no hits, and the only reliable, third-party source appears to be one mention on MTV.com - not enough to establish notability''

I agree with the prod, but an anon IP removed, so procedural AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the article in my namespace only, I think an anon moved it to the mainspace. Nonetheless, before you debate; this is worth considering. There seems to be the same article written on many sources which is odd. Plus, the band is only really mentioned in passing. I am leaning delete. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Shadowjams: Your Google News link is highly misleading (I am sure unintentionally so -- I know you to be a reliable editor). If one clicks the News link in the AfD template on this page one gets an enormous amount of hits! A number of the articles there are more than mere mentions, and some of the mentions are in publications with names like Time Magazine (not that that's necessarily the salient point here). The article may not make proper use of the available sourcing, but the sourcing certainly seems readily available. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticing now that you are simply quoting the original PROD. Either way, wanted to make sure you're aware of the issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake. I left a message on your talk page, but generally the issue is that the link from the prod that I quoted above is only the recent hits, whereas the template link has the archive search. That's probably the better one. I've struck my delete from above so I can re-evaluate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was the procedural nominator but after Ginsengbomb corrected my oversight, I think there are enough reliable sources to keep. As a purely procedural issue, I don't object to SNOW closes or anything similar, but anyone doing so shouldn't read my change of opinion as meaningful (as in a nom withdrawn). In other words, I procedurally nominated a good faith PROD that I now disagree with, but I'd like things to proceed as if the original PROD had done the AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is what I like to see in an AfD discussion. Active editors are encouraged to search for reliable sources and they can then admit that the article has been improved enough to merit staying on WP. Kudos to GinsengBomb and Shadowjams for the hard work. In any case, this is a good example of an article that really needs rescue (or at least expansion) rather than deletion. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Delete Having looked over those articles in the Google News link above, more than half of them just seem to be the same article repeated over and over again ("... The Parselmouths, a Harry Potter-themed duet, performs ..."), and the rest of them seem to be about Wizard Rock in general, rather than being about the band itself. They don't seem to have made any significant chart, they've not had a record go gold or been signed to a major label, so I'm leaning more towards delete. Vobedd731 (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. as above, there seem to be very few sources pertaining to the group itself beyond their official myspace and blog, which would surely make verifying any content in their article a little troublesome.81.168.70.117 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN musical group. 79.79.161.86 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete – Agree with orig nomination. not sure how this article has survived for so long. definite non-notable. 217.41.243.16 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom. It seems worth noting that even major contributor Alex Douglas is "leaning delete". If you ask me, if we've reached the point where even the Wikipedian who has contributed the most to the article thinks that it should be removed, then we should listen to him. 81.105.179.16 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the original PROD nominator, so apologies for that misleading Google News link - I should have been more diligent. However, my reservations about this article still stand. As has already been mentioned above, almost all the sources in the Google News archive are either the same article seemingly repeated ad infinitum, or ones that make only a mere mention of The Parselmouths. I don't believe that this band has achieved enough success to warrant a page on Wikipedia, and, even if they had, there doesn't seem to be enough information on reliable sources to verify anything that might appear on it. HiddenApple (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Cited sources do not have to be exclusively about the subject, for it to meet the WP:N notability guideline. Time, Salon, MTV, various American and even Spanish newspapers (e.g., "Y Harry (Potter) cogió su guitarra", El País, October 13, 2008, p. 40) report that this band is a prime example of Wizard Rock. Basic information about the band can be sourced to its own website under the verifiability policy, per WP:SELFPUB. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 16 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.