Talk:Silent Planet

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's an article about a band that has just put out an album, about which there's also an article - a section on reception will follow as soon as the album has gained some reviews, it's just been released the day before yesterday - and there are lots of articles on bands which have about the same amount of Facebook fans and which contain about the same amount of information so I don't see the direct reason why this article should be deleted ASAP. Because I couldn't trace the history of the band back to their beginnings? I'm pretty sure if we leave this article for a while, there will be some fans who will help out with this gap. But it's just frustrating to compose an article about a band which isn't quite irrelevant and to see a "speedy deletion" request not even half a minute later. Just think about it. --Steenvoortl (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Steenvoortl: Just because other articles exist that don't meet the criteria doesn't mean this one can too. You've admitted the big problem: the band is so new that it does not yet meet the notability criteria for bands, and it hasn't gotten enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred Four years ain't exactly considered "new". Hope those are enough sources to somehow make clear that the band's not exactly unknown or uncovered in independent sources. "1" "2" "3" "4" "5" --Steenvoortl (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Steenvoortl: Draft in your user space or WP:DRAFTS to build an article up before you push it mainline; there is less risk of removal this way. The article will have to be significantly rewritten anyhow as we can not accept self-published material from their Facebook or their Label (see: WP:RS). I don't think the article is ready to be published yet. Should userfy or move to draft namespace. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dsprc: I understand what you're saying about using Facebook as a source, but if you take a close look at the article again - I didn't use Facebook as a direct source of their history (in a sense of "it's on Facebook, so it has to be true" - I know that an artist's Facebook page is way too biased to be considered a source in this way) but I used it only in statements like "The band announced, that [...]", which I think is something different and in which case adding Facebook as a source seems to make sense because it is the primary channel through which they and many other contemporary bands make announcements. --Steenvoortl (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I've reworked the article and included an many sources as possible. --Steenvoortl (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The issues I am seeing are there are no independent, secondary non-trivial references. Interviews are primary, YouTube and Facebook are not independent, and listings are simply trivial. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of clearly independent sourcing. However, I think participation on the national tour is at least enough to prevent a speedy delete, so I've declined the deletion under A7. Nothing to say the article couldn't go through AfD, though. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)