Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanfolk


 * 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 lone weak deletion cited concerns of sourcing, however, the article has been significantly updated since nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Humanfolk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not quite sufficient evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - poorly sourced, but I've seen much worse. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Humanfolk is a well known Manila based jazz band that has been covered in the following major publications: Rogue, a literary luxury magazine ; Status, a monthly Asian youth culture magazine ; and FHM . The fact that the article is poorly sourced does not mean reliable sources do not exist, in fact WP:NRV states that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." The notability of Humanfolk is clearly established by the above features from reliable sources. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, though I will be adding maintenance templates shortly.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the templates. I already improved the article and removed some of the tags because of some of my revisions. Could you please state in the talk page of the article the other things need to be improved? --Jojit (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I already improved the article by adding and fixing references and I think it already established notability. It also passed WP:MUSICBIO. --Jojit (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, Article is fair enough to hold as notable article. AFD post by an anon who had no guts to defend it. Clearly a cheapshot. --Exec8 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * has been editing for ten years. He is not an anon by any standards.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * wasn't the original nominator. He's talking about the anon that added the speedy deletion tag. This person nominated three different articles associated with Johnny Alegre for speedy deletion, and applied various tags to each of them, even though they didn't require most of them. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Referring to 121.54.32.162, 121.54.32.161 and 121.54.32.163. --Exec8 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, in which case please be a bit clearer next time. The anon did not AfD it...-- Laun  chba  ller  15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am wondering what "not sufficient evidence" is being talked here about. What level of notability must be obtained, does it mean it must be well known at least to the "masa" (the common people) before being marked as notable? Humanfolk has been featured in several well-known publications (they are not just blogs but reputable media publications) dating back 2011, or might be, even earlier. That means it has already established notability, at least to the music industry. Chitetskoy (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (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.