Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison's Halo

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's Halo

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

Fails WP:BAND. The references are facebook and bandcamp with the exception of one Allmusic bio and a blog. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep A google search turned up a year old dedicated article in the Phoenix New Times, which I added to a new section "Further Reading." So that's a second dedicated reliable source. I suggest leaving the article for, perhaps, a year to see if they make any headway in major media. If not, then delete.Tapered (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been in existence since 2006. What would another year do that the previous eleven failed to do? Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in fact, they are still getting media coverage - e.g. here. St Anselm (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*DeleteInsufficient dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Fails notability. Comment of User:Justeditingtoday persuaded me. Tapered (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm restoring my provisional keep and striking out my delete. I thought that Justediting was referring the New Times article being 10 years old (and a reprint), but he was referring to the Wikipedia article in question. That was the reason for my delete. My bad. Tapered (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They seem to be big in Phoenix[1] (no mean city itself) and big in the shoegazing genre (which admittedly I'd never heard of until now) - as witnessed by their inclusion in the Still in a Dream: A Story of Shoegaze 1988-1995 box set.[2][3][4] St Anselm (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important band in the history of this genre in the US and still receiving press/acclaim.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's an opinion, not backed by references or Wikipedia guidelines. For practical purposes, useless. Tapered (talk) 06:05, 24 February 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.