Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society of Invisibles

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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. The only criterion under which they're argued as notable is the base criterion of non-trivial coverage in third party reliable sources; User:Hello Control effectively refutes this. In any event, there seems to be only one editor supporting keeping the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[]

The Society of Invisibles[edit]

Non-notable group. One album, no hits, minimal media attention. Claim of a tour is not supported by references. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. It's very telling that none of the groups involved have their own articles and that the single release was done on their own private label. --jonny-m t 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

None of the members have their article, but it doesn't mean the group isn't notable. Also, Babygrande Records is a notable label. Spellcast (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Comment Babygrande is notable but they've only got one release, not the two required by WP:MUSIC —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC #1 as seen by the article's references and infobox reviews on their first album, The Society of Invisibles (album). I agree this needs a lot of clean up, but AfD is only meant to determine notability. Spellcast (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]
- Comment The references as they stand: [1]: an article about the band = non-trivial; [2]: they charted on a retailer-specific sales chart—per WP:CHARTS, should be removed; [3]: a short article about an upcoming show = borderline non-trivial; [4] one paragraph in a long review of a music showcase = trivial; [5] the band's label's website = not 3rd party. Also note that all of the articles are from the same local paper. Sure the album got some reviews, it was released by Babygrande, but also note that some of them are on exceedingly non-notable sites (faygoluvers.net?). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Delete: In fact, a single album release fails WP:MUSIC; a band must have multiple releases to qualify under #1. Beyond that, the album article has no citations to back up its purported critical reviews; we may have a walled garden here. RGTraynor 15:22, 11 March 2008 (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.