Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profound Intent (2nd nomination)

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. The 'keep' !voters didn't present really convincing arguments compared to the deleters. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profound Intent (2nd nomination)

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

This article was deleted after its first AFD in early Dec. 2006. Since then, the group has released an album, and the article is now supported by news coverage from one source (a local DC arts newspaper). I removed the speedy g4 tags in favor of this new AFD. NawlinWiki 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Profound Intent (band) is a new copy of this article... -- Scientizzle 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No it’s not a copy. It's what the article should've been from the start. It’s not a copy. Do not associate the Profound Intent (band) article wit the [Profound Intent]] article. Why, would you even point that article out on this page. Queen Amber Rice 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I would guess he's pointing at it because it seems likely that the creation of that article is a work-around to avoid the deletion of this article. I honestly hate not assuming good faith but this article has already been re-created since deletion once and there's been vandalism done just in the course of this debate already. I've changed my opinion below to Delete and Salt and recommend an admin take a look at all this -Markeer 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt I'd genuinely like to say keep for this article, if only because the authors have taken a degree of care in creating it that's uncommon for up-and-coming groups. However, a simple google search for "Profound Intent Play the Field" only gets hits for the band's (and it's frontman's) own websites. Per WP:MUSIC this band needs to be covered in multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Wikipedia will be happy to have an article about this group...once they become notable. It is not a place for them to build notability. -Markeer 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Why is this even up for an AFD? It should be a speedy as per Wikipedia:Music. Their promoter/manager The article's author should hang onto what's written and when they do meet notability guidelines, he can put it back. If he works half as hard at getting them to tour or promotes their album, they'll be a hit. --Walter Görlitz 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no verifiable sources documenting notability per WP:BAND. Talk page claims of magazine coverage did not happen. One self-published album, so nothing towards WP:BAND's requirement of two on a major record label. Weregerbil 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:Band We need multiple non trivial coverage from third party soruces, but I'm affraid we ain't got it here. A1octopus 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep so your saying that their manager or someone from their camp is using Wikipedia to promote the group. That's a misleading and slanderous account to make carrying some serious repercussions. We (as in the public) learn that with Scott Harris when he made a mockery of the group in an article he wrote. The magazine coverage did happen in the March 2007 issue of On Tap Magazine. The article “Profound Intentions” was retracted. Now if everyone here puts just as much time into visiting the group’s website and reading what they find on Google and other search engines as much as you gather to make slanderous yet unproven allegations regarding their notability and who started the article you’ll see your wasting your time. If you say the group isn’t notable then ‘what the hell’ is all the discussion about. Profound Intent is notable enough for the simple fact that you can Google the group, visit a legitimate official website and purchase their music from major retailers.68.239.77.10 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am saying that someone associated with the band is using Wikipedia to promote the band, yes. It's neither misleading nor slanderous. I'm sorry if you feel that way, however the evidence points to this. The rules are quite simple and are outlined in WP:Music. Feel free to see them and if you want, attempt to get the rules changed. Until they are changed and Google is added to the list of notability guidelines, we will have to rely on what's there. --Walter Görlitz 05:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not a promoter or a manager of any music group. I'm a writer. This group is notable. You guys are bending and contradicting yourselves and the criteria, just step back and look at the article, your comments on this and the discussion page. Then review the WP:BAND and look once again at how this group has something consistent with more than three of those standards. Davidcarter biowriter 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No non-trivial coverage from independent sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I tried to look at all the articles from OnTap in the refs section, but I get nothin'...And I did a site search and got even more nothin'. Anyone else have any luck? -- Scientizzle 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I applaud the above-average work by the article creator and editors, there seems to be a lack of verfiable, credible, independent sources asserting notability. As per my comment above, I tried to check out the refs, but it was all apparent dead links, press releases and trivial coverage. Add a Google search for "profound intent" "play the field" that receives only 41 unique hits (largely MySpace, CDBaby, and the band's sties & press releases), and it doesn't appear that this group meets WP:MUSIC. -- Scientizzle 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, I did a search "Profound Intent On Tap Magazine" (Item #4) on yahoo and the search engine got to get the article before it was retracted you can read it here at [[1]]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.79.227 (talk • contribs).
  • I contacted On Tap Magazine (www.OntapOnline.com) and they confirmed this is the retracted article. It shows the URL that the Profound Intent article provides but click on "Cached" to see the article. Hope I was able to help.68.239.79.227 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help there! -- Scientizzle 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That appears to be one valid source, but WP:MUSIC still requires multiple non-trivial sources. -Markeer 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is too complex. It should only contain the critical facts. Not doing so has caused many of us to dispute the group’s notability. I think just focusing on the Retraction of a magazine article about the group which has made headlines across the country and the mentioning of their record Play the Field at this point should be the only things in which the article is based upon. In my opinion their notable for "disputing a reporter in the media" regarding a article viewed by a great amount of people and has now been retracted and slated to be re-written according to Robert Fulton the magazines editor. The current criteria for determining such notability for Bands is currently “unreasonable” which has led to this discussion. The group has a lot in common with every standard of the current criteria. However it doesn’t necessarily meet each standard fully simply because their not on a “Major” label and have a “Chart Hit” but they are on a indie label with a major distribution deal with “Catapult” (distribution) which makes their music available worldwide both in stores and online. They’ve performed more than, but 15 live performances they’ve made have aided in their establishment and notability as a group or band. I think it would be reasonable for there to be an article on Profound Intent at this point. Make it a stub and allow it to expand with provable content as the group progresses. As long as the information is true it wouldn’t hurt Wikipedia or us (its contributors). Queen Amber Rice 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)— Queen Amber Rice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment The claim they are on an indie label with a major distribution deal is totally incorrect. The article refers to their labels as "LaPret World ENT" (LaPret is the name of one of the members strangely enough) and "Catapult". Catapult are a vanity distributor, anyone with $35 can distribute an album through them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Oh no Catapult is not the same as Catapult Digital Distribution Services. You can't pay no $35 fee, you have to be signed to a distribution deal. "You" are the one making the claim that they're with Catapult the Digital Distribution. Please choose your words and make your claims wisely. 72.75.69.101 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So there's two Catapults that have distribution deals with stores and online then? Until you provide evidence to the contrary, my claims stand, so perhaps instead of making veiled legal threats you could provide a link to the Catapult you allege to be different from Catapult Digital Distribution Services? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Weregerbil. --ElKevbo 13:59, 8 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.