Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantak

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. Michig (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mantak

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

"This band is considered as the most successful and controversial Metal band in the Island of Borneo. Some said Mantak was also one of the most successful Extreme Metal band from Malaysia." No evidence of this. Mentioned here in Encyclopaedia Metallum, which is promising. Website non-existent (or they haven't paid the site fees in a long while), which is not promising. Shirt58 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. No supported claims of significance or immportance. No in depth web or press coverage. In this day an age a notable band would also have at least a free hosted web site of some sort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - being signed to a notable label, Drakkar Productions seems like a credible claim to significance, enough to pass A7, even if the claim that they are "the most successful and controversial Metal band in the Island of Borneo" seems not to be credible. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the 3rd party, reliable, independent source that confirms that they are signed to Drakkar? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of significance does not need to be sourced to pass A7, per the policy: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source...". I am not arguing that the article be kept, just that it not be speedily deleted. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer my question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is: I don't know. I've looked, but haven't found any third-party sources verifying that. In the reply, I was merely expressing the opinion that your question is irrelevant to the argument made in my comment. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thoroughly disagree with the idea that a band is notable simply because it happens to be signed to a recognized record label that has a standalone article in Wikipedia. That's exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of bands have squeaked under basic notability criteria to enjoy their own unmerited articles, which in turn cascades to their own unmerited album and single articles. §FreeRangeFrog 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being signed to a notable label is not a strong enough claim to notability. Does not appear to be the subject of enough reliable or significant coverage either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 8 November 2012 (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.