Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli et Papillon (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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Eli et Papillon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete; relist following a no-consensus because no-participation close in the first discussion. This is still an article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which basically just asserts that they exist, the end, and sources it to one piece of reliable source coverage and one interview on a blog. But the interview doesn't assist notability, because it represents the band talking about themselves and blogs aren't reliable sources, and the one piece of real reliable source coverage isn't enough by itself to give them "notability because media coverage exists" in the absence of actually having accomplished any specific thing that would pass an NMUSIC criterion. This is simply WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep A cursory search finds several other mentions in published works, eg . I disagree on the importance of the Huffington Post article, it is published by organization which has full editorial control, and therefore applicable, see Identifying reliable sources. The fact that it is an interview is irrelevant, it is not a self-promotional piece written by the band, but rather a third party writing about their interview of the band. I am not entirely sure of the reliability of all the mentioned sources, as my french is a little shaky, but I believe they qualify the band as notable. However, the article as written is very weak, and in need of much improvement. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All four of those links are blurbs, not substantive coverage, and three of the four are in blogs rather than real media (Voir is the only one that counts for anything), so no, they're really not adding GNG points at all — and even if they were valid sources, none of them is verifying anything that would pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion. And the thing about Q&A interviews is not some random personal thing I made up just to be difficult — it's a longstanding consensus at AFD that interviews of that type can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after passage of GNG has already been shown by stronger sources, but they cannot be the GNG in and of themselves if they're the best sources that can actually be found. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I read the numbered points of WP:NMUSIC without reading the clarifing sub-bullets too closely. You are correct that none of this supports NMUSIC. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2017 (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.