Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope (Australia band) (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. J04n(talk page) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope (Australia band)[edit]

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

Non notable band for which no significant coverage in reliable sources exists to support it. At first glance it appears that reliable governmental sources exist to establish notability, but this is not the case. Ref 1 is a government directory listing which includes promotional. content from a (possibly defunct) www.mono.net blog. Ref 2 and 3 are listings. Ref 4 is a blog. Ref 5 is likely a listing from a playlist but is dead. Ref 6, 7, and 8 are also all listings in directories. My searches past these references were unable to uncover significant coverage of this late 90s rock band therefore it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just - non-vanity album on Phantom - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what you mean by this? I can see from the page Phantom is Phantom Music, a label in Australia I presume (is it actually Phantom Records??). How does being a band on a certain label confer notability? FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, that label. It doesn't confer notability, but having a real label releasing it rather than a vanity release helps notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not an album though, it's a band. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It should be reasonably obvious I'm referring to the criteria of WP:NBAND - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my previous AfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it would be helpful if the above two editors could explain what they mean by "per previous AfD." The previous AfD closed as no consensus, and the keep votes didn't provide any references with which to judge notability. The references on the page right now are, as pointed out by nominator, to be unreliable. As always, will change vote if more evidence can be brought, but I didn't find anything when I did a search. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the previous AfD, some eight months ago, I declared my belief that the subject passes WP:GNG. Nothing in this new AfD nomination has convinced me otherwise. AfD is not a reference check – the sources provided show the subject is notable enough for a WP article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which references? The one's in the article currently were commented on by the nominator and I think were already fairly assessed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous AFD !vote - Still fails BAND & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Blogs, SPS, Amazon, and then Australian Music Online. The question of notability hinges on whether AMO is considered a reliable, third-party source. It's defunct now, but now integrated into Trove (link). A quick search will confirm that if you had a mate in high-school or uni who played in a band for a few years before becoming a lawyer, his band is probably on there. On the other hand, they did have an album published by an actual (if small and indie) record company. Winning an award might be notable, but it appears that the WAM award is specifically to encourage new and not necessarily notable bands (there is a specific category for published artists, and Penelope were not in this category). On balance, I think the lack of actual independent sources points to non-notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. no notable albums, no major awards, no notable members. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2015 (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.