Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unfortunates (band)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Unfortunates (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability per WP:BAND. Speedy A7 declined by another editor on the grounds that they have toured their home country, but I can find no writeups of the tour from WP:RS, nor any other significant coverage online from WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NMUSIC's touring criterion requires that the tour has received reliable source coverage in order for the tour to constitute notability in and of itself — but the sourcing for the tour shown here amounts to a WordPress blog and a photo set (not even an actual article) in the community weekly newspaper of one band member's hometown — a source which is not widely distributed enough to carry WP:GNG. And all of the other references here are either primary sources, blogs or the alt-weekly in the city where the band is based (which is a source that could assist carriage of GNG if the rest of the sourcing around it were solid, but is not able to carry GNG by itself as the only valid source in the entire bunch.) NMUSIC is not passed just because its passage is asserted; it's passed when the claim to passage is properly verified by reliable source coverage, of which there's none here to speak of. And for added bonus, the writing tone has a (not speedy-eligible blatant, but definitely present) advertorial skew to it. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when something much more neutral and much better referenced than this can be written. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is I need access to a bigger source to prove the tour? So, if I remove mention of the tour in general, everything else will suffice? There are sources that aren't from the hometown in regards to reviews of the albums that are certifiably from the UK. The only thing that seems to be the problem is the tour, correct? PunkRockCaveman14 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've completely misinterpreted what I said — the tour itself is the best claim of potential notability that's even present here at all, so removing it from the article would make the problem even worse rather than better. The problem is the quality of sourcing that's being used to support the article — none of it is adequate, because except for Vue Weekly and the Lac la Biche Post, virtually every other source or external link here is a primary source or a blog. Reliable sourcing, for the purposes of getting a band over NMUSIC, is major-market daily newspapers from a range of markets not limited to the band's own hometown, and music magazines on the order of Exclaim!, Spin, Rolling Stone, Paste or Magnet — it doesn't matter if a blog is from the UK, because it's still a blog. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the references are weak. Simply having references is not enough. These do not convey notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are some sources but still at best nothing solidly convincing, delete until there is better. SwisterTwister   talk  18:16, 21 June 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.