Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy the Great


 * 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 delete. I see consensus to delete here. Most of the keep votes note that their stance is weak, and nobody has disputed the close analysis of the sources, after which all further !votes have been to delete. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Daisy the Great

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BAND on all 12 counts. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Meets criteria 1, 4, of WP:BAND. RHirsch1770 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I found very little that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources, the best seeming to be a brief Allmusic bio, the Refinery29 article, and a piece from Popdust. None of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC appear to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is just barely keep worthy as do I agree with the reasons given of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was seriously going to nominate as delete per the aforementioned criteria within WP:BAND (not least points number two and four). Weakly, I could argue point twelve, too. I suppose Internet entries such as this one make me weakly (and I mean weakly) merit a keep status, even though the article still needs work if we opt to keep.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Meets criteria 1, 4, of WP:BAND, but barely. But still within the Keep of WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete the keeps here are utterly unconvincing. I see no evidence they meet anything from NBAND, nor do they have coverage to satisfy any other criteria. Small time blogs, medium pieces and listings are not adequate. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking through all of the blogs in the sources, I don't think WP:GNG has been met due to lack of significance or independence (which negates NBAND #1 and #4). The band could be notable soon, though - if there's better sourcing don't hesitate to recreate it. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:BAND - Kolma8 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Probably also 1 and 4 of WP:BAND. gidonb (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I feel like they pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Evaluating the sources one by one: 1: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg, promotional and a considerable part of it is interview, violating WP:IS. 2: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg, just a listing on their label's website, not in-depth coverage and not independent. 3: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg, Medium.com is user-generated. 4: Same source as 1. 5: Symbol question.svg, leaning Symbol_oppose_vote.svg. Seems to be a reliable music website and coverage is more than a trivial mention, but not quite WP:SIGCOV, imo. 6: Symbol question.svg, leaning Symbol_oppose_vote.svg. Reliable website but seems to be routine coverage of a video and the author has a connection to the band, which fails WP:IS. 7: Same source as 2. 8: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg, it's an interview, fails WP:IS. 9:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg Just a promotional listing. 10:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg, probably WP:UGC as a blog, also just a promotional listing. Disagree that this source satisfies WP:BAND #4 as the tour only receives a trivial mention. 11, 12:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg Interviews, fail WP:IS. 13: Same source as 6. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete based on my evaluation of the sources above, sorely lacking in independent sources, perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON. I did a pseudo-WP:BEFORE and found nothing that would satisfy notability guidelines. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — doesn’t satisfy WP:NBAND. Celestina007 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No seeing how any of the sources meet the requirements for WP:NBAND.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 07:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needs more reliable, independent, secondary source coverage than Nylon and R29 for us to write an article on this topic that does it justice without regressing into original research. No additional hits in my custom search of vetted arts/music/cultural sources. Beyond the GNG, that there is so much confusion over NBAND #1 and 4 is telling. (not watching, please )  czar  17:22, 24 December 2020 (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.