Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripped (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped (band)

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

Completely unsourced article, created by User:Rippedmusic and therefore a conflict of interest, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The closest it gets is a nomination for a local music award, which isn't close -- NMUSIC's criterion for awards requires major awards on the level of the Junos or the Grammys or the Polaris, not just any music award that exists at all. There's simply nothing here that would qualify them for an article, and no reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article is totally unreferenced, and with a conflict of interest, also as the article is not foreseen with getting good references in the future. — 卍・〇・卐 03:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail NMUSIC. Someone in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripped nomination said the band had two albums released on a major label but the article version at the time did not corroborate this and the account that made the comment has been inactive for over 11 years. I am unable to verify that the band has had two or more albums on a major label or, in general, find sufficient coverage in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, people used to routinely argue that any record label at all was either a "major label" or an "important indie label" for the purposes of clearing NMUSIC #5 — and we weren't as strict about requiring a claim to actually be reliably sourced as we are now, but rather it often was enough at the time to merely say that the claim was true without actually having to prove it. But one thing we've learned since 2006 is that self-aggrandizing publicity seekers will sometimes pretend to have a stronger notability claim than they actually have in reality — overstating the actual "importance" of the label, claiming a "hit single" that was never actually a hit anywhere verifiable, etc. — so yes, it's now more clearly the depth and breadth of reliable sourcing that can be shown to verify the notability claim, not the mere assertion of a notability claim, that gets an article kept. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (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.