Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball Park Music (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Park Music[edit]

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

The previous AFD (September 2010) for this Australian indie band reached a consensus to delete on the grounds of failing WP:BAND. The text was userfied and it was returned to mainspace in November 2010 with additional WP:RS. I had deleted as a G4 but have been persuaded that this was not strictly applicable so have brought it back to AFD instead. I can see that they have made some progress, winning some kind of local competition and gigging at festivals (although that was before the last AFD) but the question is, is it enough? I don't know. nancy 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for both having national rotation and enough coverage for WP:N. Coverage extends beyond local going outside their home state. (note coverage provided in this article has been improved since nomination). Ongoing COI edits do not help things but do not stop this band from being notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also as above. definitly not deletion worthy article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2011 (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.