Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Fat Children


 * 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. The keep is a weak one despite the !vote ratio.

Most keep !votes address the weakness of nominator's rationale, which is a reason for not deleting. Not deleting, however, does not imply keeping since AfD outcomes are not binary (i.e. either keep or delete).

If the above !votes are ignored when accounting for keeping, the keep outcome is only supported by two !votes, in which one is a weak keep while the other is from the creator. The lack of discussion on sources makes the keep outcome weak.

The discussion could have been closed as no consensus instead, but the keeping arguments are just strong enough after two relists. Either way, the article is kept.

Should this article be nominated for deletion again, discussion should focused on sources instead. The nominator should give a convincing rationale and respond if needed (though not to the point of badgering). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

All_the_Fat_Children
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Band Page Lacks WP:Reliability and is non-notable. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment as the creator of the article, I agree with nom. Vikram Vincent 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * of the ten sources in the reference list of the article, which specific sources are unreliable? Please list them here so that we can discuss. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominator has NOT done even a cursory WP:BEFORE. The sources used are The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Deccan Chronicle, Rolling Stone India(reliable for music info), Bangalore Mirror, DNA India and Times of India. While we do follow WP:TOI for political commentary, this is a music band and hence TOI can be used based on the claims being made. The other sources explicitly mentioned are clearly reliable. Even if the claim that there is no WP:SIGCOV in an individual article, though the TOI article does have it, all the WP:RS put together does satisfy the criteria of notability. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of WP:BAND, the page satisfies criteria #1 and #7. Vikram Vincent 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is some discussion of whether the subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Further discussion may help garner a clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep The current sourcing is mostly passing mentions, but there is also a pretty long Indian Times article mainly about the band that isn't currently in the article ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/the-name-all-the-fat-children-was-our-way-of-fighting-our-body-image-issues/articleshow/60477913.cms), which is just enough to keep it in my opinion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Do Check WP:TOI Pranhita (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't something where their bias would affect the reporting. I'll stick at weak keep since its not very reliable generally, though.  Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 02:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still needs indepth source discussion.
 *  Comment Speedy Keep I think the page needs to be speedy kept since the nom has not engaged in any discussion on the sources they claim to be unreliable. The WP:TOI claim was clearly misplaced. Of the 15 sources on the page that can be considered WP:RS, 10 are dedicated solely to the band, 1 is the Rolling Stones India page and the remaining 4 share article space with other bands. In sum, WP:SIGCOV is available.  Vikram Vincent 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep RE: Relisting comment "Still needs indepth source discussion". Why? The nom says some of the references are not appropriate, but refuses to say which ones. Jeepday (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes notability Rajuiu (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.