Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Handshake


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Handshake

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

Unsourced, appears to fail both NMG, both criteria 1 and 4. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BAND. No chart history, no reliable third-party sources, no notability. § FreeRangeFrog 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Crap article for a notable band. Allmusic has a biography, albums have been reviewed by PopMatters and Prefix  among others, they have one release on Triple Crown Records and a second coming in less than two months . Chubbles (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep AllMusic is notable but can't be used for notoriety as it is a blog (see CSD A7). PopMatters isn't actually notable (at least it hasn't been proven in its article).  Prefix isn't notable either.  I see no proof of notoriety and therefore believe the article should be deleted.  I hope they become notable in the future though.  See WP:N for notoriety info.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 07:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:MUSIC for multiple albums on Triple Crown Records; . Also for these mentions;, , , , , , .   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 11:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those citations given are reliable sources under WP:RS. The bands website and blogs are especially flagrant and not being reliable.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe them to be, in accordance with WP:RS; "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." We're talking about an alternative, punk electronic band, so your first port of call, after Allmusic, is going to be the alternative, punk electronic band newswires. At the end of the day it's about context. IMHO.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is not a blog; it's a highly useful third-party database. Alternative Press is a reliable source; it's the biggest paper magazine that covers this kind of music. Likewise with Blabbermouth.net, a well-known hard music news site, and the actual blog posts, which are blogs of newspapers. I see no viable reason to treat them differently than material from the same source that's not labeled "blog". Lastly, third-party sources need not be notable in their own right to be considered viable sources. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't consider those to be reliable sources under WP:RS. That's just my opinion on where the reliable source line is drawn.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I retract my statements about Allmusic per WP:NM. It specifically indicated that AllMusic is a reliable source.  I can't say I agree at all but I'm not a policy maker.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider AllMusic to be a valid source in some cases. Again, you can draw a parallel between AM and Wikipedia, with both being reliable in some cases and not on others. Coverage of artists there is not always uniform to their notability and viceversa. Normally I'd reverse my delete vote but I think some of the sources given by Esradekan are borderline at best, and I'm less and less amenable to the argument that releases under a record label automatically squeak the subject by WP:MUSIC, because I think some of the record companies abuse that to promote their non-notable artists here. § FreeRangeFrog 22:44, 19 February 2009 (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.