Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melband

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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melband

Melband (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails to assert noteability seems somewhat confused as to what it is talking about. Geni 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it should be deleted at all. it is very public online collective of people in the music industry who discuss all manner of issues and events. the organisation is based on fact and the people in it are real. i'm confused as to what you're talking about geni. Are you bored or something? Victorpender 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Searching Google, I can see it's mentioned here and there, but the only reliable, external source I can find is this brief description[1]. Not enough to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - musician networking site local to Melbourne, Australia. This might have some local notability, but the article provides no sources, and searching doesn't generate anything either. -- Whpq 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are links to our actual web sites. this isn't finished yet. we are still adding to it. and wiki isn't limited to a geographical location. there are lots of articles of interest from all over the place. don't delete this. it means something to us even if not to you. i bet there's stuff you're interested in on wiki that doesn't have general appeal.Victorpender 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Websites of the article subject are generally considered to be primary sources, and are less likely to be "reliable" under the definition used in WP:ATT. If this musician's network is notable locally in Australia, please provide reliable secondary sources to that effect. You may also want to read WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what Wikipedians generally consider notable in this area. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless proof of notability per WP:MUSIC is provided. Also, in regard to the above, it is not necessarily that primary sources are less reliable, but rather that the notability guideline for musical groups requires at least two independent (i.e., secondary) sources. -- Black Falcon 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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.