Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss of the Gypsy


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiss of the Gypsy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article seems to be more about the lead singer than the band, band does not meet WP:BAND and article has no WP:RS Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  22:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google News finds a handful of reviews of their sole album, but nothing that appears substantial enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. DroQwfp (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete looks like a clear fail of WP:BAND to me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the problem for me is that I see no allegations of notability either in the article or on their home paqge. Neither do I see evidence of widespread touring. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted per a comment on my talk page. Courcelles 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm inclined to keep. They have a descriptive entry in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, an early edition of which had them "widely regarded as being one of the most promising British outfits to emerge since Def Leppard." They have an interesting Allmusic writeup . They have a dismissive but significant review in a major newspaper . Rockdetector says they received "a fair amount of press acclaim" and it seems more than likely there is more ~1992 coverage than is digitized online. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Allmusic and Encyclopedia of Popular Music coverage is sufficient for notability, and I also found reviews in High Fidelity News and Record Review, Toledo Blade, and The Post and Courier. Given the period the band are from, it's very likely that there is more print coverage out there. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've tried to incorporate some of the above reviews and details on the band, which I feel is support enough for WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Tribune and Blade references.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found. I also notice in Google news archive search, the "Post And Courier - May 7, 1992" bit about them.  It doesn't link straight to the part of the newspaper that shows them, you having to scroll to the right, and find the yellow highlighted bit where they comment on the good and bad about them, and mention their singles which are mentioned in the article already.   D r e a m Focus  20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above editors, and in particular the band's inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:06, 27 December 2011 (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.