Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severed Fifth (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Severed Fifth}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Severed_Fifth_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Severed Fifth}})

Redirect to main person behind this band was undone, a second time, by {{U|Ahunt}}, who claims that "one very extensive third party ref" established that this should pass notability standards. Well, the band doesn't pass WP:NBAND, since they didn't have a deal with a major record label (they didn't have any deal at all), didn't have any hits, didn't put out any albums that received significant reviews, et cetera. The supposedly "extensive" reference is an [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/ubuntu-community-head-tests-music-economics-with-open-content/ article in Ars Technica], which briefly discusses the fact that the band released its album with a CC license. That information is already in the main article for the person (Jono Bacon), and I think it would be the first time that a band gets to be notable based on one single article which isn't even about the music.

Note that the article has been nominated and deleted before; at the time the Ars Technica article was already in there, and nothing has changed: there are still no reliable sources. Note that the version restored by Ahunt has six references--all but one of them to the band's own website or to the founder's website. In other words, the subject fails NBAND and GNG spectacularly, but I will settle for a merge--as was already advocated at the first AfD. Also pinging {{U|Ravenswing}}, who nominated the article the first time around. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - While it is true that this article does not meet the stringent standards set by WP:NBAND, in that it only has one independent, third party source and not multiple ones, I believe it should be kept, regardless. This article describes what was predominantly an economic experiment, more than a musical one, about an attempt to create a band that would distribute free music and rely on concert admission tickets sales, T-shirt sales and donations for economic survival, instead of trying to sell music, an attempt to make a new model work. The fact that the band failed and no longer seems to exist, is a key part of the significance of the article, that, at least in this case, the model didn't work. Because of this encyclopedically significant music industry economic story I believe that the article should be retained, as WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keeping this article is not an improvement--I don't see why it would be. The content you are talking about is possibly relevant in Bacon's article, where it already is, or in some article about free music--but seriously, we're talking about one non-notable band that appeared to have been a hobby of someone whose main job was something else entirely, a band whose music may have been free but was clearly not considered important by anyone else, really.

  Jax 0677, this sort of applies to your statement as well: Nothing in Jim Adams's article suggests he's actually notable outside of Defiance (the article on Adams is horrible), and there is nothing in any reliable source that says something significant about Adams in that band (obviously I'm not counting [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqLJLCEK3Q this], haha!). So I maintain that a redirect is the right thing. Next thing you know we have two notable musicians and the band is a supergroup... Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I had a second look at Jim Adams (musician) and redirected it to Defiance (band); it's really that minimal. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - The article should be either kept due to two notable musicians, or redirected to Jono Bacon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:*Comment: Which notable musicians would those be? Adams has none, and Bacon's (very shaky) notability comes solely from his computing experience; he would certainly fail NMUSIC himself by a country mile. Ravenswing 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

::* Reply - {{ping|Ravenswing}}, then we redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

:::*Reply: ... which everyone but Ahunt advocates, so I'm not understanding why this was relisted. Ravenswing 17:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect: to the Bacon article. This one neither meets NBAND or the GNG, and that makes this a slam dunk. I'm unmoved by Ahunt's WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument, because if this was a significant industry economic story, multiple reliable sources would say so, in detail sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material ... If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." These are core content policies of Wikipedia, and establishes a basic principle: it's not whether we think something is important that matters, but whether the world has taken notice. It hasn't, and per WP:V, that means an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jono Bacon per previous AfD (which closed as delete) and above; this fails all relevant notability guidelines (and all irrelevant ones too, not that that matters). ansh666 00:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Since every editor aside from Ahunt is advocating redirecting, why is this still being relisted? Ravenswing 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.