Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empathy Test

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy Test

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. This isn't even attempting a notability claim that could even be measured against NMUSIC at all, basically just documenting the fact that the band and their music exist, and its only references are the band's own self-published website about themselves and a social networking profile on last.fm, which are not notability-supporting sources. As always, every band is not automatically notable enough for an article just because their own self-published web presence offers technical verification that they exist -- they need to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and reliable source coverage about them in real media to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found PopMatters and Clash refs, but still not enough... Caro7200 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found and added more refs anatorpedo (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't found or added good references. I'm seeing a lot of blogs, PR kits, social networking and other such primary sources, and not a lot of evidence of notability-supporting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added to the bio, reworked the citations and formatting. Now multiple refs from multiple sources anatorpedo (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with what counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia content and what doesn't. Your list of options, for example, does not include Facebook, Twitter, IndieGogo, YouTube or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reworded bio and changed sources anatorpedo (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's creator has made an admirable effort to shore up the sources, but I'm afraid the nominator is correct about the shortage of reliable secondary sources. The group has a couple of friendly interview articles in the electronic music press ([1], [2]), but the article remains dependent on typical social media and industry listings, plus sources about things that are only tangentially associated with the group. Unfortunately they simply have not yet been noticed by the reliable music media, which is required per WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer520. The group has not gained significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 18 April 2020 (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.