Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seismatik

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 redirect to Aaron Rossi. SoWhy 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seismatik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Very little information about a highly non-notable band. JE98 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the only independent, reliable source that gives significant coverage to the band is this. All the rest appear to be fancruft and give no indication of attention from major critics, failing musical group notability standards. DrStrauss talk 09:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Band is notable, and should be merged to Aaron Rossi or kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - do you have any additional reliable sources which indicate that the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG in order to support your claim of notability? I notice that you are the creator of the article which means I am assuming that what's in the article is the best of what's available, and it isn't much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Premeditated Chaos:, that is all that I have, but multiple means two or more. Anyways, it can be redirected to Rossi. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• multiple means two or more - yes, but it's not only the number of sources that matters, it's the depth and reliability. Two small articles from Blabbermouth in 2012 which both quote heavily from a press release and are otherwise almost the same article barely qualify as one source let alone two. The Melodic.net review is a single paragraph so again depth is questionable. The Protonepedals link is broken but appears to be a business not a professional music review site which makes it unreliable as a source. I'm not opposed to a mention at the Rossi article but there's definitely not enough sourcing to keep this as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aaron Rossi or delete. Sourcing inadequate to support keeping as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (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.