Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Megas (band)

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 keep. Nandesuka (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Megas (band)

Non-notable band - searching doesn't turn up any reliable independent coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about IGN Music? Isn't this a reliable independent coverage? I searched on google and found this: http://music.ign.com/articles/787/787795p1.html Alby13 (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two members of the band, Mike Levinson and Greg Schneider, were members of Agent 51, a notable band according to Wikipedia's standards. Meets WP:MUSIC. Alby13 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it has gone to the trouble to list sources. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - none of the "sources" are reliable. The IGN reference isn't even about the band, it makes a fleeting reference to The Megas at the bottom of the article in association to a completely different artist. No one is questioning whether the band exists, but whether they are notable. According to what I've seen, they are not. I'm sorry, but these citations are fluff. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - So we just need more opinions on whether the sources are reliable or not. Alby13 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a manner of speaking, yes. However, if other editors disagree with those who are in favor of delete, the onus lies with them to demonstrate exactly how and why the sources are reliable. As I currently see it, they are not. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.vgfrequency.com/the-megas-release-debut-arrangement-album-get-equipped/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_51 The first one is more coverage and the second one is one of our articles that mentions the band agent 51, it even mentions the megas. http://thasauce.net/modules.php?name=NewsTwo&file=article&sid=741 That one is a prominent online news site for the gaming community. Metalman21 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually WP:AGF, but bear in mind that the above user's only contribution is a keep in this discussion. Second of all, just reiterating what is already present in the article doesn't do anything in the way of convincing me of notability sanctification. A gaming portal, in and of itself, is not reliable. It's certainly usable as a reference I suppose, but it's not demonstrable of notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the fact that 2 members are former members of a notable band qualifies this for inclusion. Deschain1 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the fact that 2 members of The Megas are former members of a notable band qualifies this for inclusion. Also, the sources in my opinion are valid and help qualify the band as notable. Breeding (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Breeding[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.