Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apatia

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apatia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Poland. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know how the nom looked for sources, but they managed to miss and ignore the source cited in the article, from Onet.pl, which meets SIGCOV and is reliable. So that's one - and it calls this band "legendary". Pl wiki lists two more sources, from a notable NGO, which calls one of its albums "cult" ([1]). The band is mentioned in academic works, including in English, ex [2] "most of the best Polish punk bands such as Apatia...". Other Polish sources: [3] (onet again), [4] (Gazeta Wyborcza - Polish main newspaper of record), [5] (Życie Warszawy) I am not going to list more sources, but plenty exist even in English. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for terrible execution of WP:BEFORE, since finding sources does not even require speaking Polish (not that these days, with solid machine translation built into most browsers, this should be much of an excuse). PS. That said, the claim about them being mentioned in PWN I could not verify. The article needs improvement, here and on pl wiki, but this is no reason to nuke it. Sources I found here should be enough for anyone who cares to improve this article to get it to DYK level... maybe even I'll do it one day if I find the time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Piotrus that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, preferably with at least pasting the mentioned sources into the article. Geschichte (talk) 15:01, 29 April 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.