Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rust Punk Tribe


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The Rust Punk Tribe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently started this year, not in 2012, and there's no sources found that can be added. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Check the reference list, and again, as no one does, the genre is supposed to make a difference as to what is considered for notability. WP:NBAND criteria 6 mentions inclusion of two or more independently notable artists, when Sin Quirin and Sean Payne are in the group, again genre relative, this group is perfectly notable -BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Genre, for the most part, is supposed to make no difference as to what is considered for notability. Sean Payne has no notability independent of Cyanotic (something your you of a piped linked backs up). Sin Quirin's notability is entirely dependent on his membership of other bands, he is not independently notable. This collaborative project is not a band in the normal sense. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all, not that this is crucial, but their Facebook page has fewer than 250 fans . Fails to pass WP:GNG because I couldn't find significant coverage of the band in reliable independent sources, and I don't think anyone else will be able to, either. Doesn't pass WP:BAND because there's no proof in reliable sources that Sin Quirin and Sean Payne are members of the band, so criterion 6 is not met. That list of members is unsourced. Even if Sean Payne is a member of the band (of which there is no proof), he's not an independently notable musician, as Duffbeerforme pointed out. The article doesn't even indicate why it's a notable band. Dontreader (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of proof that not only is Sean Payne in a band, Cyanotic is his project. Here are just a few sources: |Source 1 |Source 2 |Source 3 |Source 4


 * Comment despite the fact that I see articles for deletion that succeed even though Wikipedia notability guidelines are completely disregarded, I'd like to point out to the closing moderator that criteria 6 does in fact say, and I quote "This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre." Regen Magazine and Brutal Resonance are reliable industrial music publications. I've seen many notable metal and industrial artists deleted because guidelines were blatantly ignored, even with numerous reliable sources. And the same users are nominating articles in the genre for deletion constantly. People not involved with heavy metal and industrial culture will not know what is notable and reliable in its genre, and people shouldn't be editing articles on topics they don't know anything about -BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I would consider this expansion upon Sin Quirin related information, and justify a stand alone article due to the joint nature of the project with multiple notable people. I would list Regen Magazine and other industry sources as independent sources qualifying WP:GNG. -Steffan Sanders (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Steffan Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Surprise surprise. a new SPA voting in an afd related to Busy. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done playing your games duffbeerforme; constantly trying to bait a negative reaction from me, constantly marking articles I create for deletion, and making constant accusations. I'm not sure why you feel the need to harass me, other than the one time I made an accusation towards you, and you seemed to indicate that I didn't have enough evidence at the time. I think the evidence is beyond sufficient this time, and I ask that any closing moderator consider, and possibly look into this. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment For what it’s worth I investigated the two sources mentioned by BusyWikipedian. While they may be reliable in regards to the information they contain, I’m not convinced they rise to a level of significance to convey notability. FYI Steffan Sanders, Regen Magazine is not a professional venture; their website openly proclaims it is the exclusive work of volunteers. Now don’t mistake this for meaning it might not have professional quality writing and carry weight within its niche, but so do well run fansites. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS I question it’s merit as a notable publication/source. Brutal Resonance, according to their ad rates, charge little more than $100 U.S. for a months worth of banner ads, which signifies a pretty paltry audience. And while someone else correctly pointed out social media numbers shouldn’t be used, I find it revealing neither magazine has much more than 3.000 likes on Facebook. That said, I’ll abstain from voting because BusyWikipedian makes good points about editors making comments on sub music genres that they don’t follow. Fair enough. But just regarding these references (and not the merits of the nominated article) my long experience in publishing/marketing/and music indicate that these two sources are pretty weak arguments of notable coverage for this topic. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still nothing nearly close enough to the needed substance of an actually convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see that the sources provided have enough depth or reliability to push this through on notability grounds, and I don't see that Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:16, 22 July 2016 (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.