Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazed (2nd nomination)

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.. CitiCat ^♫ 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested speedy (never mind that articles about the band have been speedy-deleted more times than I can count). Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC with no label, no songs/albums released, or apparently even recorded. They may be notable someday, even someday soon, but for now they're not.

Addendum: Despite the box to the right, this is apparently the only AfD that is relevant to this band, despite numerous speedies. There's apparently a web site, which has nothing to do with the band, that was also speedied many times and then deleted via AfD. Realkyhick 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (music) they don't seem to meet any of the criteria. The article says "Fazed's achievements thus far are notable for having been made without the support of a record label or other representation", however it seems that not being signed to a record label does not satisfy the notability guideline. Indeed, they have recieved air time, arguably with a large audience, but still, I do not see this as grounds for a Wikipedia article. Calgary 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I would change my say to keep if sufficient third-party press coverage past the extensive air-time they've received was added to the article. TheLetterM 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep, if, of course, sources can be found. They seem to have received some decent exposure, so it doesn't seem as if it's insane to suppose such sources might be out there. Ford MF 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely lacks any sources besides the video of appearances on regional television. Heck, as this article stands, the band hasn't even released a single album. That's quite a ways away from notability. fuzzy510 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Fazed's achievements thus far are notable for having been made without the support of a record label or other representation - both of which they intend to seek in the near future." Oh well, at least those things aren't harder to get than a Wikipedia article. What a catch-22 for these guys--they can't get a record deal or representation without being notable, and they can't become notable without a record deal or representation. And now they're losing the strongest thing they had going for them--this article. Chin up, boys. You'll find that the recording industry's musical standards are a lot lower than Wikipedia's. Qworty 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, According to the bands official myspace, they will be releasing an EP in the Autumn/Fall of this year. I've added some references to 3rd party press coverage.Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the notability guidelines require two albums in the past rather than half an album in the future, they're still short at least one-and-a-half albums. Also, while the world isn't entirely convinced that The Guardian or the Times of London has the authority of myspace, can we wait for a print source on this one? Qworty 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's on the bands own myspace page so I think its reliable enough. Also, the guidelines state "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria:" - it does not state that it has to meet all of the criteria. The band meets a few so there is no reason why the article should be deleted.Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine, User:Helmsb, came up with a great shortcut: WP:YMINAR. I think it applies here. Realkyhick 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That doesn't apply here, the Fazed article hasn't got myspace as its ONLY reference, it also has the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, self-referential Myspace pages don't really cut it for reliable sources; the BBC ref is a good one, but it's also one of the only ones I could see that are independent and verifiable, and not gig lists or other listings. Sounds like the band is moving towards where they may meet music guidelines, but they don't seem to be there yet. Delete - when they've got two albums on a substantial label and national touring under their belt, then an article would be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Signed or not, there's no multiple non-trivial media coverage. The won a popularity contest and got to open a festival and that's about it. Precious Roy 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BAND. Nuttah68 12:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND says they are notable if they meet any one of the following, they don't have to meet all the criteria.

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.