Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The High Learys (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 keep. Rough consensus that the article just passes the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High Learys[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but most are not reliable. AMRAP charts are not good charts. Band lacks sales, airplay, awards. Releases are not on "important" label. Touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote as that is going to be my new policy I believe for articles I approve. I will comment and say this though. This was a borderline accept for me, going by the guideline that an article could survive AfD 50% of the time. The nogusta article and murdoch sources were the selling point for me, but just barely. Might still be a case of WP:TOOSOON. My concern is, if greater sources can't be found, that this page would face inherent bias in re-creation if it fails two AfDs. I would just ask either way that it be a soft delete. As the creation of it was done through the proper channels, and there's no reason that the page should be potentially salted. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. I don't think it's much better than it was when deleted weeks ago, but agree with Sulfurboy that it does not need to be salted considering the circumstances of its re-creation. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes: WP:Band#1: some of these are now in the article. Passes: WP:Band#4: national and international tours are now described and verified.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep per Shaidar. I'd have looked askance at the street press, but multiple city street press passes for me. And the rest of the new refs - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst not the most clear-cut it does satisfy WP:BAND criteria 1 & 4. Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 27 July 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.