Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Caps (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. Notability not established, and no relevant arguments to the contrary. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[All Caps (band)]]=

:{{la|All Caps (band)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|All Caps (band)}})

The creator of this article has made some valiant attempts over the last two weeks to find reliable sources for this article, but I just don't feel that they exist. The refs in the article that you could argue are from reliable sources mention only Kristina Horner, and don't mention All Caps at all. A Google News search for [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22All+Caps%22 "All Caps"] reveals more than 17,000 results, but none seems to be about this band. More specific searches for [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22All+Caps%22+%22Harry+Potter%22 "All Caps" "Harry Potter"] and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22All+Caps%22+wizard "All Caps" wizard] don't seem to mention the band either. I'm afraid that I feel that this group does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. A Thousand Doors (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Shame to see someone's research go to waste, perhaps the creator could move the contents to his/her user page, in case the band does become notable one day. doomgaze (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete - A search on you tube for "all caps" turns up 5,590 results. Their channel on youtube.com has more than 26,000 subscribers. Their music has been widely covered by other on-line artists. This is just the kind of information that wikipedia is uniquely positioned to provide. -- DaveSiberia 10 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.132.6 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete - The debate here seems to be if they are notable or not. To that I say that they are. They have gained a wide audience from YouTube users who go to see them on tour and their music has topped the iTunes electronic music charts.--Gaiash (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete - They are very notable in certain online communities and have a very passionate following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.185.113 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete/userfy Doomgaze is correct, the available sourcing doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND, another review like the one in the Communicator and I would have been less certain. I do think there's a chance that this group will eventually meet WP:GNG, and it seems like the article's author has put a fair bit of work into producing an article here that I'd rather not see entirely lost, particularly when a newspaper/magazine article or two might actually establish what our policies call notability, so if the author will accept holding onto it, I'd have no trouble with it being held in userspace as a draft (if that's done, leave a note on it back to this discussion to prevent it from getting MfD'd.) --joe deckertalk to me 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - It is important to note that this band qualifies as being outside the mass media traditions. As such, the notability criteria in WP:BAND may not be entirely relevant. Farther down the WP:BAND page under the Others heading, the 4th criteria is fulfilled. They have composed numerous songs, the most popular of which has received over 2.5 million views on YouTube. I move that this deletion discussion be discontinued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabiller (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - Of course I am biased on this because I am the main author of the article. Though if this does get deleted I have it saved on my home computer and flashdrive in case they do one day become what is undeniably notable :) I personally believe Wikipedia needs to update their notability standards but thats for another place. While yes an article search doesn't show much for the band a simple youtube search does including their live youtube performance as ALL CAPS for the Project4Awesome live broadcast that was on youtube (which can still be viewed mind you). I also feel that per the WP:BAND I feel that number 5 should be cleared up more because a more than a few is up to the individual like I personally see that a few is 1 or 2 which would qualify DFTBA records as more then a few years old seeing that it is 3 years old and it has notable individuals such as Hank Green, VenetianPrincess, Molly Lewis and internet comedian Michael Buckley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelofdeath67 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It would seem that the most common rationale for keeping the All Caps article from the "Do Not Delete" !voters is that they are extensively covered by media outside the "mainstream". While this may or may not be true, the advantage that mainstream media has over, say, blogs or YouTube is that it is generally more reliable and trustworthy, due to its rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight. We need to use only reliable, third-party sources on Wikipedia to make sure that what we are publishing is verifiably accurate. Anybody can edit, for example, Last.fm and alter it to say whatever they want it to, hence why we can't use http://www.last.fm/music/All+Caps to determine notability. Also, having over 26,000 YouTube subscribers doesn't in and of itself make a band notable, per WP:BIGNUMBER. It should perhaps also be noted that a large number of the "Do Not Delete" !voters have made few or no contributions outside this AfD. A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I do understand the advantages of the mainstream media. However, I think we can all agree that they don't always latch onto everything that is worth learning about.Mabiller (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (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.