Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sian Alice Group

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. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Alice Group

This article fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. I recently prod'd the article, but it was removed with no edits being made towards making it pass any of this criteria. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--you already nominated this for deletion, right? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but i usually add a line in here as well as the commentary at the top as people seem to overlook that i am voicing my opinion. I'm not sure the notability of the works with the exception of the Guardian article, i think this needs to be reviewed. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failing WP:N Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC requires that a band "... has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." which is what I added links to when I removed the prod tag. Is there something wrong with all of those references? Yes, it's still a stub, but the notability should no longer be in question. (??) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Quiddity is correct; nom. may have been a bit quick on the draw. While not all of the sources are really notable, in-depth, etc., the Guardian article alone is almost enough for WP:N. Combine that with the other halfway-decent sources (you know what I mean, Quiddity: an article in Pitchfork is not exactly like an article in Rolling Stone, and the NME article is far from in-depth), and I think you have notability. BTW, kudos to the band's label for NOT filling the page with PR nonsense. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I dislike filling Wikipedia with semi-notable musical groups, artists, songs, albums, bands, etc. However, according to the established guidelines for WP:MUSIC and WP:N, this meets the criteria. Should be kept due to sources provided, though some of them are a little weak. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable group. I see no evidence of notability established through multiple, non-trivial publications. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC#C1. The last time I looked, the Guardian, NME, and Allmusic reviews were classed as reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly badly in the need of expansion, but the references provided do establish a passable case for notability under WP:MUSIC#C1 (particularly the Guardian and WNYC stories). Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 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.