Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl in a Coma

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 (non-admin closure) Clear consensus that the multiple sources that are available about subject are non-trivial and demonstrate notability per WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in a Coma

This article itself is clearly advertising and the first two sources are not reliable in the slighest (not indepenent certain;ly) and the third one isn't much either Weygander (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren't all that great and fall short of WP:RS. Band fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone attempt to search for other reliable sources? Please remember that Wikipedia guidelines ask that we first do that before nominating an article for deletion. Here are a few: Dallas Observer Austin Chronicle Windy City Times Unrated Magazine Los Angeles Times L. A. Weekly Curve magazine. And so on. There's enough for a keep under WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't the same as number of sources and is based on the candidate page not the deletion page. --Lemmey talk 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite in keeping with the guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. If an article can be improved, such as by adding sources, then it should be improved, not deleted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a blog roll of sources will not improve the article. A presumption of notably can not be applied to obviously non notable subjects --Lemmey talk 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the extent of coverage in reliable sources (such as the newspapers and magazines I noted above) actually is how Wikipedia determines notability in a neutral way. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem notable enough for mine given Paul Erik's sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taking the sources in the article and the ones provided by Paul Erik I think this band passes WP:MUSIC#C1, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". Even found a few more (a couple are just minor mentions): [1],[2], [3],[4],[5] --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik. --Bardin (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Paul Erik. --xanderer (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know Google isn't the only indication of notability, but I saw too many reliable hits to discount this article as another "crappy Myspace band", as that one "summary of Wikipedia content" picture floating around calls them. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 14:36, 4 June 2008 (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.