Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope (Australia band)

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 no consensus. Nakon 03:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope (Australia band)[edit]

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

Tagged for WP:NOTABILITY by Duffbeerforme seven years ago; time for a resolution. I couldn't establish that they meetb WP:MUSICBIO, and I think it's close but not quite there for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND most of the sources are not third party. Has won no major awards nor produced notable albums. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did support gigs for a few notable acts but don't meet WP:MUSIC themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, just - non-vanity album on Phantom - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient independent references to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the references are primarily music industry so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails BAND and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it meets WP:GNG.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how, the sources in the article are not really third party. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. They warrant an article - an AFD is not a reference check - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a check on the quality of sources available. The sources are almost all music industry related, so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple NLA coverage: Governmental sources appears to be sufficiently reliable as an indicator of notability. - Mailer Diablo 23:47, 11 April 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.