Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia (band) (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus moving towards keeping the page in light of newly added sources; still-unreferenced material can be cleaned up. Complex / Rational 02:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Cecilia (band)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No citations (for the last 12 years), no obvious NMUSIC pass, no obvious RS from a quick BEFORE. Lots of uncited and BLP information. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, yes, what Tagishsimon says. But expressed a desire to demonstrate the band's notability a mere 17 years, 11 months ago. Perhaps a half-century is needed? ("There is no deadline.") -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New York, Virginia,  and Washington, D.C..  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of no claims of achieving anything notable, no suitable citations about the band found in the last 12 years. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Delete : La Santa Cecilia is a band, witg some sourcing. Nothing for this band, called Cecilia alone. Article is also unsourced, from the wild west days of wikipedia it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this is such a case. Verifiable does not mean cited. Citations serve to verify that the information is verifiable, but verifiability of the information rests on the existence and availability of sources, not on the references themselves. The wild west days of Wikipedia are: There are no references + the content is NOT verifiable (could be subjective, could be made up, could be any kind of junk). This article was responsibly and neutrally written and prose is of reasonable quality. Important content points can easily be verified. I am now finding sources and adding citations to the article. —Alalch E. 11:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment they do have a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They also have this WaPo article written about them in 1999: Cecilia: All in the Family—Alalch E. 10:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another source, 2004 (this is RS for this purpose, find it in WP:RSP for an explanation): Cecilia’s family groove—Alalch E. 11:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another WaPo source with sigcov —Alalch E. 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable band. See the sources in the thread above this comment. (AllMusic bio, The Washington Post). They contain significant coverage. This was a regionally significant band for a period of few years that was signed to Atlantic Records.—Alalch E. 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants to respond to the WP:HEY initiative: Sources were found. They are in the article (not all contribute to notability but at multiple do) and some are mentioned in the above comments. Many previously unsourced claims can be verified via references now. Does this affect your recommendation in this AfD?—Alalch E. 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's much improved -- but still problematic. and (just a couple of minutes ago) I have removed a lot of "Where are they now?" chitchat; but above that the article still has such unreferenced material as  -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as the sources are paywalled and I don't have time to, um, use other methods to unpaywall them... WaPo is a solid source, usually. I'll put my money on that horse today as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia totally respects copyrights and using any sort of a ladder that's around 12 feet long, or look at today's archives, io, are not what we should be doing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article now has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG in my view. Unreferenced material can be removed, also I don't see an issue in using archives otherwise it would only be the well off who edited wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 November 2023 (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.