Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recyclone

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 of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Adherence to WP:BAND questionable at best. No albums on www.allmusic.com, an album with no info on Amazon (not even sure it's the same guy). Even less for The Motes. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• His name is highlighted on entrys regarding Sixtoo and Pip Skid. He has distribution through www.phonographique.com in Canada and some countries overseas, and the motes are distributed by Outside music in Canada. I made the post because I thought that the red names in other posts were meant for desired articles, and I have been a big fan of the artists from (now defunct) ant records since the mid nineties. The amazon.com entry entitled 'Numbers' is the Recyclone. He has been covered by Exclaim magazine in Canada, as well as most of the canadian weeklys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.55.40.16 (talk • contribs) .

The above comments were from me Pipeface84 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unable to verify any of the information in the article from any other sources. Unless the article's original contributors can provide citations and references from verifiable sources, I would say we have to delete. --DDG 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC to me. "Jon Hutt" gives 525 googles most of which are random. Renata 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Renata3 -Rebelguys2 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cite sources and improve. Some links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. AvB ÷ talk 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI, the 4^th link you provided doesn't reference this person at all and one of the other ones just mentions some album that he's a guest on. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This is the correct link. It lists two albums. AvB ÷ talk 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AvB --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Google hits are not proper criteria, WP:BAND is. If he's released zero (or even one) albums of his own, he doesn't qualify under the most clear-cut line of WP:BAND. Having less than two full-length albums is usually a sure sign of non-notability. Which part of WP:BAND are you saying he falls into? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC is a guideline, and one with numerous flaws. In this case, I'd say the mentions in Canada's Exclaim magazine more than cover it. Don't let the US bias get in the way of this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: A free monthly newspaper about Canadian underground music qualifies as "major music media"? Wouldn't that open quite the Pandora's Box... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't know that Neil Diamond, System of a Down, and The Fall were "underground." Also, I've never heard of a free monthly newspaper that people subscribe to. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just reading what I see at Exclaim!. Apparently, that's incorrect? And that web site has 571 records just for bands that start with the letter R! I refuse to believe that every one of the thousands of bands on that website have been "prominently featured" (as stipulated in WP:BAND) in that magazine. A one-paragraph album review doesn't qualify as "prominently featured" if you ask me. You could fit 10 or 15 of those on one page of a magazine I bet. Total misinterpretation of that line of WP:BAND. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does appear that Exclaim! needs some work, as it certainly doesn't reflect what the site says. As for your accusation of my "total misinterpretation," I consider album reviews to be a prominent feature - not all bands, even more notable ones, get reviews - and that's with my trying to keep its notability within the flawed WP:MUSIC guideline. I see no reason to change my vote, nor will I. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine. I'm just pointing out to others that these are what most would consider "prominent features": [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. And, if you ask me, that was the intent of that line of WP:BAND. And even one of these featured bands doesn't have an article here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • They will shortly. Again, the intent of WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC may be great, but it doesn't change that there are inherent flaws in that guideline, and I disagree that a review isn't a prominent feature. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a confused mess. Does not appear to be notable. Stifle 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], these are a few other features and international distributors that handle his stuff. Pipeface84 03:12, 27 January 2006 (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.