Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rude Mechanical Orchestra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Hu12 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rude Mechanical Orchestra

Rude Mechanical Orchestra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. I did a search for sources, but all I could find were self-referential or self-published. Many of the self-published sources seem to refer to the Wikipedia article itself as a source of notability. RJASE1 Talk 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete none of the cited sources are more than passing mentions of the band. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I looked at the various sources, and the first source [1] seems to be certainly more than a passing mention. It appears that an interview was done with them on that one. The others, yes - passing references. Can anyone else find another serious source? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Can the nominator please give an example of that last claim? - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • First I want to clarify that I am not referring to the sources used by the article's author and primary editors, but to other mentions of the group when I search for additional sources for the article online. Some examples would be here (at the bottom) and in this and this from tourfilter.com. At second look it's not as bad as, for some reason, it seemed to me in my original search, so I'm striking out that comment above. RJASE1 Talk 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ALL of the references seem self-referencial; especially the first one. It is a rewording of a press release, and an example of lazy journalism. The blogs and personal websites should be deleted from the article per MoS:L, leaving us with very few sources at all, and all of which are related to the subject of the article. Being in wikipedia would certainly benefit this group, but it would not benefit wikipedia. Jerry 21:40, 1 April 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.