Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinfect (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfect (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band does not meet notability per WP:BAND. --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found only basic listings. The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia was created in March (though they've been around since 1999) and has no real sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough reliable sources to establish band as notable. Saw some listings here and there on MTV, but that's it. Delete. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability of the sources, they are real sources, not notable as it seems (because they don't seem to mete mainstream criteria, maybe?). So shouldn't magazines (both print and online) not be used at all? Or is there a certain subscriber base required? One more question, for future articles: Why/how was it accepted as article in the first place? Looking forward to any help and thanks in advance.• Chrisnb

To answer Chrisnb's question. Whether a source conveys notability is not related to its popularity or its specificity, but rather its reliability. In short, if a source has editorial control it is usually reliable and conveys notability. Looking at the sources in the article (which none of the above comments seem to have done):

Metal.de is an extensive review and the site appears to be a reliable source - conveys notability

Perun.hr is a modest length review and the site's reliability is possible, but unclear - doesn't add much

Eternity Magazine is an interview (semi-primary source) by a publication with unclear reliability - adds nothing

Voices from the Darkside (Chris Infect) appears to be a reliable source - adds a little, but not as much as a review or other non-interview would

Blabbermouth does not appear to be a reliable source

The-pit.de does not appear to be a reliable source

The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (tour dates, track listings, etc)

Overall, I would say that adds up to some minor notability: weak keep --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. I took my examples from similar articles, but this helped me a lot. • Chrisnb

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.