Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I and Thou (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 no consensus. Two relists and almost a month on AFD hasn't brought forward any more contributions, and I decline to relist further. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I and Thou (band)
AfDs for this article:


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

Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. The only notability claim apparent here is that their album exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and blogs or webzines that aren't clearly WP:GNG-worthy -- and the article has been flagged for notability issues since 2014 without ever seeing any significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes criteria 6 of WP:BAND; which was pointed out in the first AFD. There are a few by-lined independent reviews in e-zines and magazines already in the article. These sources have editorial oversight, so I am not seeing a strong argument for why they wouldn't count towards WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion the tag should have been removed after the first AFD was closed, and could be removed now (or at least at the close of this second AFD if it is kept). 4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ezines are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. What I see in the article is as follows: #1, unrecoverable dead link from an unreliable source. #2, primary source. #3, deadlinked but claimed to have been a Q&A interview with one of the band members. #4, directory entry. #5, deadlinked but again claimed to have been a Q&A interview with one of the band members. #6, unlinked and impossible to verify what it was or how substantive it is or isn't (which isn't necessarily fatal all by itself, but becomes a much bigger problem given how bad all of the other sources are.) #7, unreliable source. #8, deadlink from an unreliable source. #9, unreliable source. This isn't GNG-making coverage, at all, and a no-consensus closure in 2014 (when both our notability and sourcing standards were utter trash compared to what they are now) is not convincing evidence to the contrary. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is in fact not true, as many e-zines have passed and been approved as RS by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and are endorsed as RS by WikiProject Music and the related sub projects. In general we consider e-zines as sig cov towards meeting WP:GNG based upon their editorial policies/process. From what I saw, many of these e-zines have editorial review and should be considered significant independent coverage. So I think you are dismissing sources that shouldn't be dismissed, and would likely pass an RS noticeboard review. Labeling a bylined independent review in an e-zine with editorial oversight as "unreliable" is not an accurate or fair assessment of the source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the sources seem to be reviews. I'm personally having doubts based on notability so far, and while I agree with 4meter4 that e-zines can be used for notability in general, not all e-zines are qual, and there should be some more coverage from other types of sources.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.