Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Cross Accordion Band Atticall County Down


 * 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. The "keep" opinion(s) is/are unconvincing and does/do not address the problems identified in the nomination.  Sandstein  09:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Holy Cross Accordion Band Atticall County Down

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NORG WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Of the 31 sources that were accesible. Passing mentions or trivial coverage : 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(dead link), 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35  Affiliated: 1 No mention of the subject: 11, 22, 31. there is literally no in-depth secondary coverage of the band. Some of their competition wins were because they were the only participants. This is really a WP:ORGVANITY page clearly edited by members of the band with comments such as "Many spectators and experts disagreed completely with the result stating in outrage that "Atticall band should have won" another said " They were the clear winners"." this page fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMO. All the passing mentions and trivial WP:REFBOMBING does not hide the fact that this is not notable enough to have a page in WP: Dom from Paris (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. WP:BAND is demonstrably not met (no charted singles/albums, no major music awards, etc). WP:GNG is also not met (zero results in a news search, only trivial mentions in a web search, nothing in a book/academic/other search, etc). Apart from the problems with notability, I would echo the concerns raised by the nominator in terms of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Would seem to have been created purely in the interests of the group or the editor (and their goals) - rather than in the interests of Wikipedia (and its goals). In short: firm recommendation to delete. Guliolopez (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Promotional original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (refectoring to allow parsing Dom from Paris (talk)) Shouldn’t be deleted has numerous relevant sources that backs up all the material in the article. Anonymous860 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Anonymous860 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.


 * Keep (refectoring to allow parsing Dom from Paris (talk)) Do not delete. The band clearly is notable enough to have a wikipedia page having been awarded the best band in Ireland 7 times, this clearly demonstrates their high profile status.They have also performed at many notable events which should also be taken into consideration. In regards to the lack of sources, there are in total 44 and 8,9,13,18,33,34 are very detailed sources explicitly on the band itself so any lack of reliable sources shouldn't be a problem. Other statements from above about why the article should be deleted are clearly untrue and show bias towards removing the page. Most of these people do not understand the magnitude of the awards that this band has won and the recognition they receive in the marching band world. It has not been created in the interest of the band but only to inform other people of their history any promotional aspects of the page have been removed and anything in the article is completely factual backed up with numerous sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.35.151 (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)  — 31.205.35.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Taking your suggestion at face value (that the other contributors here, myself included, misread/misunderstood the relevance of the refs), I decided to take a quick look at the refs you have highlighted. IE: Numbers "8,9,13,18,33,34". In short, ref numbers 8, 18 and 34 (as they were when you posted your comment) all link to the exact same Wordpress blog post. Blog posts do not meet project guidelines for reliable sources. Not least because ANYONE can publish a blog post to say whatever they want. Even then, the publisher of this particular blog post has not made the article subject the primary topic of their blog post. So, even if a blog post WERE considered a reliable source, it still wouldn't support a claim of notability. The same goes for refs 13 and 33 (which are also duplicated links to the same blog). Finally, while ref number 9 does seem to be a link to a reliable publication (a Donegal Democrat article), the article does not mention the subject AT ALL. It is therefore irrelevant to the text which it claims to support, and is irrelevant to any claim of notability. In short, your argument is invalid - at best. And completely disingenuous - at worst. Your argument has not swayed my opinion relative to this AfD discussion. But has reinforced my concerns relative to the WP:NOTHERE and WP:ORGVANITY concerns raised by the AfD nominator. Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2018 (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.