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. There is clear consensus among editors other than the primary contributors to the article that sources are lacking, and no convincing rebuttals to delete arguments' source analyses have been provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sewerslvt[edit]

Sewerslvt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, barely any reliable sources online. Sources used in the article may not be reliable, especially excessive use of Discogs. Toadette^Edit! 08:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: This was very recently moved from draft. Obviously this was premature. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be moved back to draft, it definitely is lacking sources right now and is very biased Kawaiidumbassery (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "excessive use of Discogs" is on the discography section only, alongside musicbrainz.

It does not fail WP:GNG, but may or may not require certain new sources depending on WP:NMUSIC.

Sufficient sources were provided.These include:

https://www.scaruffi.com/vol8/sewerslv.html

https://musicidb.com/artists/Sewerslvt

https://cainhillier.substack.com/p/the-last-time-i-saw-you-sewerslvt

https://gzo.medium.com/draining-love-story-review-analysis-878618e5895

https://microgenremusic.com/review/draining-love-story-by-sewerslvt-music-review/

Some content may have to be revised and/or cut for the unbiased standard. However it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the movement from draftspace to articlespace, as said above it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. Registered and Autoconfirmed users do not have to go through AfC to create an article, so it was moved. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medium and Substack are self-published sources. And Discogs and Musicbrainz are not, in fact, used only in the discography, but excessively all throughout the article body. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With my updates I think it meets more requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music), they have released on two important indie labels which I have updated it to reflect. I think moving it back to draft would be the best choice, it seems to have been published prematurely. Kawaiidumbassery (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the consensus so far is to move it back to the draftspace. I am still concerned, there are other articles released with less sources then provided on the article for Sewerslvt. I can also account for the problems on the article, including the reliance on much of one source. There has also been a commons deletion on a primary image used on the article. The article shouldn't be deleted, neither kept on the articlespace. I am still curious though, what defines an article as premature? NikolaiVektovich (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fall short of notability guidelines, and even if draftified I don't see it going far. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only one apparently interested in working on this article is the inexperienced editor who created it and moved it from draftspace, so I see little point in draftifying it again. But will gladly reconsider if anyone else is willing to pick this up as a draft. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I disclose I am the primary contributor to the article. I have attributed many sources to the article, and even if it does not meet majority consensus as passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, I still see how it could be improved as new sources are attributed to it over time. There are 10 sources on the article, each being applied to varying sections for citation standards. Seeing others opinions, Draftifying it feels like the best move. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This musical artist lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Pitchfork and Bandcamp are trivial mentions. Flood is a musician talking about why he likes one of the artist's songs. Dancing Astronaut is a very short album review, not significant coverage of the artist. I have not found any other reliable sources that provide coverage of this musician. The remaining sources cited in the article are not reliable. Scaruffi, Death Letter Reds on Substack, and Micro Genre Music are all self-published sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To add, I believe that draftification would be inappropriate. There's no indication that this artist will be notable in the near future, as the last media mentions were 2-4 years ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does not establish notability. It lacks valid, reliable sources. Unreliable sources have been added since earlier review, indicating a lack of good ones. Previous draftification failed. Further draftification seems like a poor use of time and effort. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 18 May 2024 (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.