Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*repeat repeat (2nd nomination)

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. SpinningSpark 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*repeat repeat

*repeat repeat (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 10#

repeat_repeat|View log]] · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (by article's creator) without explanation of an article that is a recreation of a subject that was deleted by AfD. New refs do not help subject meet WP:GNG and the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON, although if the trajectory of their new release lives up to the recognition it has gotten from Nylon Magazine and Time (although it should be emphatically stressed that Time.com is different from the Magazine for notability purposes) the band may soon merit a wikipedia page. For now the problems remains there is just not enough evident significant third party coverage. What is so far provided is mostly trivial, name-checks, promotional, etc. Give it more time and resubmit the article when sourcing is more solid. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The band meets the qualifications. Legitimate record label, and many sourced national references. I'd like more opinions on this as I fear the person who continually puts this up for deletion has a proxy against the group. Any more insight is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly do the meet any qualifications? Since you're the creator of the most recent version, you have a vested interest the article. I have no feelings about the group at all. I am simply applying the guidelines as I perceive them. Can you tell me how they meet the notability guidelines and I'm wrong in the way I'm interpreting them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They meet the requirements, again, by being signed to a legitimate record label and having many national press references. I see a lot of groups on here with zero trouble that lack all of those things. I'm not sure why this band is any different and continually has to be put up for deletion, when the cleary meet the guidelines. Thank you for the help with edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being signed to a "legitimate record label" is not a criteria for inclusion. Having released two or more recordings on a major label may be, but only if those recordings garner publicity for the band (see WP:MUSICBIO. And just because the article has multiple "national press references" does not meet WP:GNG. That requires "significant coverage", and brief mentions doesn't cut it, although some editors feel that many many (more than the number here) brief mentions in sources like the ones you provided would help meet GNG. The number would have to be fairly high though. Just because other bands or groups don't meet the criteria doesn't mean that this band's article should be kept. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion, or alert us to them and editors can review if they meet notability criteria. So, the band does not meet any notability criteria. Since they made it onto my watchlist after the last AfD, any recreation of the article will be seen and if the band still do not meet notability criteria, I will likely nominate the article for deletion. I'm not sure why you think the band is being persecuted. They're not. They just don't currently meet any notability criteria and so they have no place on Wikipedia. We won't stop them from touring, recording or seeking publicity elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Sources look legit and they are on a known label and touring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4102:6BF0:ED45:27BE:C64E:FC1E (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability requirements under WP:MUSICBIO. This doesn't mean they are a bad group, somehow illegitimate, or don't make music. It means that, at it currently stands, the band is not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON and not enough coverage yet to pass WP:GNG. Wait until their next album gets some media coverage and try again. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Salt. Note: I closed the first AfD (as delete). After that, this was re-created once and speedy deleted, then recreated again and here we are back at AfD with essentially the same discussion as the first time. So, I suggest this be salted to avoid us coming back here again in a few months. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would normally agree with salting with a second nom, but with their pending release and the outside chance it could go somewhere, that may be excessive. It just depends on whether an admin wants to deal with a RfC request instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2017 (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.