Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Party (British DJs)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Party (British DJs)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to find any reliable secondary sources. No indication of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - managed to find a single third party source, but it's in the Liverpool Echo, a locally distributed paper with no national coverage. Clearly no 'widespread' coverage and no charting singles or albums - as such fails WP:NMUSIC.  Nik the  stunned  12:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - Woah! This is a highly notable duo. They've made huge strides in their career. Their song with Martin Garrix, "Lions in the Wild" is actually a charting song, peaking on at least 5 global charts. This page should stay. Infopage100 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. Apart from the Liverpool Echo article above, there is this interview with a Brazilian website, but I don't know if it is an RS. Virtually all the references are either to the likes of iTunes to show the track is available for download, or passing references in non-RS websites saying "Third Party's new record is out now" – none of it demonstrates notability. Armada Records is a Dutch label that distributes the group's records so it is not an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel like me and my work is being targeted here. >:( Infopage100 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , we need evidence that they are "highly notable", and we haven't been able to find it so far. "Lions in the Wild" only appears to have charted in France, and at number 125 – the Dutch chart position appears to be fictitious. So I don't know what the "five global charts" are... if you are talking about iTunes or Beatport, they aren't considered acceptable charts on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ok, I was including iTunes and Beatport charts. But regardless, even if you do omit those unofficial charts, the song did technically chart. It peaked at 52 in The Netherlands and at 125 in France. The song also gained over 11 million streams on Spotify. I would also like to note that they (Third Party), have a song titled, "Everday of my Life" that has gained over 2 million streams on Spotify. Infopage100 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Dutchcharts.nl site has no record of that song making the main Dutch chart – it seems to have made no. 15 on the Single Tip chart and no. 27 on the Dance chart. Richard3120 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Martin Garrix's discography page, the song charted on the aforementioned Dutch chart. Maybe someone confirmed incorrect information, but you can see for yourself: Martin Garrix discography. Infopage100 (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, that article is wrong, unfortunately - I've found some other incorrect chart positions in that discography as well. Richard3120 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - I recently added some chart info, and from what I've read, that makes this article good enough for WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. So this article is good enough for me. I may be new, but I know what Im talking about. Keep. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider the criteria at WP:MUSIC. As Richard pointed out we have to be careful with certain chart positions. As it stands there is one collaboration that has reached the lower echelons of the charts. This, I'm afraid, really is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The real problem here is the sources. They are all WP:PRIMARY, such as Youtube, Soundcloud, Beatport and Facebook links. There is one reference to a review and it does not work. Karst (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the false Dutch chart position, and corrected the positions on the Martin Garrix discography article as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added some really good in depth interviews and references to make this page better.

http://houseplanet.dj/2010/10/15/interview-with-third-party-rising-stars-from-size-records/ http://www.manchestersfinest.com/people/third-party-interview/ http://www.studioparisnightclub.com/djs-custom/third-party/ These should do good in making the article good. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)<<<


 * In future, try not to add bare URLs to the article. Also look at at reliable sources. The houseplanet one is a fluff piece, Smash Hits style that cites their favourite things. The Manchester finest does the same. Studio paris is a press release. All this adds very little and does nothing to prove that they are notable. Karst (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first two links are interviews, which are primary sources (biographies require secondary sources). The third link is a promo for a nightclub.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Like I did a few edits earlier with somebody else i also added >>>further reading<<< to the page. With these links:

http://www.studioparisnightclub.com/djs-custom/third-party/ http://www.ixdaily.com/the-buzz/third-party-talks-size-records-tour-why-they-are-done-bangers-1

And I added some external links:

http://www.magneticmag.com/2015/07/listen-third-party-exclusive-dj-mix/#! https://m.soundcloud.com/thirdpartymusic/sa-radio-1-third-party-interview-guest-mix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63RkQRomnFo (The last ones not to good i knoe). >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)<<<


 * If you know that they are not good, why did you add them? Please look under external links what can be added there. Thanks. Karst (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first link is a standard bio, probably supplied by the musicians. The second link is an interview, which is a primary source (bios need secondary sources).  The YouTube link violates copyright policy, per WP:YOUTUBE, because it has a standard YouTube copyright.  Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * AppleCrumby16 is a ✅ sock puppet of Infopage100.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then AppleCrumby16's "keep" vote should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * for possible admin intervention in that regard. Karst (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck out the two votes, but the closing admin will know what to do., thanks for checking. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish WP:MUSIC notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:06, 25 October 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.