Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Excelencia (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 keep. There is a consensus against deletion, and no consensus to move to draft, where a clear consensus would be necessary, bearing in mind this article's age (more sources have also already been added since the "draftify" votes) so I'm closing this one as keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

La Excelencia
AfDs for this article:


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

I have been keeping an eye on this page for a few years now following the split of Orquesta SCC (both from the band itself and this article) and not only has it not been improved in that time period, about twice a year an SPA will come in and attempt to remove or rewrite the band's history using only primary sources. I can't find enough to expand or improve the article myself, and as a one-source article I feel that they fail WP:GNG. I am happy to be proven wrong but after four years of hoping someone will succeed where I failed I think it's time to cut our losses. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Still no discussion yet. One last attempt at a relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music,  and New York. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep - It's not exactly correct that this is a "one-source article" as the nominator states; besides the NYT article, there is an article in Latin Beat Magazine in the references section but not cited inline, which unfortunately isn't available online. Additionally, my search found this article from Indy Week; given this, I think the band meets GNG. Hatman31 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to draft pending improvement with the addition of other sources sufficient to clear the notability bar. BD2412  T 05:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per above. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 15:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hatman31; there's also a review in the Washington Post as well as other sources available through ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc. Draftifying such an old article would likely just be back-door deletion, and I don't think that's necessary since the topic is notable and the article isn't in such poor shape as to trigger WP:TNT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per and . I've added the refs to the article, which appear to weakly pass WP:NBAND criteria 1. While the article from NY Times uses some quotes, it has sufficient direct analysis, e.g., information on the band's commercial and critical reception and style, to pass WP:SIGCOV (or "non-triviality" as per NBAND#1). The Washington Post also gives a 275-word review that passes SIGCOV. Indy Week has a decently long article, the piece has some routine information, e.g., Also on Saturday, La Excelencia serves as the official after-party for Community Fiesta Latina at the Brumley Performing Arts Building in Durham Academy’s Lower School regarding some events, but also has a bit of analysis on their unconventional image and originality, so this piece is probably debatably SIGCOV. The University Wire write-up is SIGCOV with numerous quotes but also sufficient direct commentary to be significant coverage, though I'm not sure if it is reputable enough to pass WP:RSSM. Therefore, with two sources counting towards WP:NBAND criteria 1 and two sources being borderline, IMO NBAND is weakly passed. Additionally, given that this is an old article significantly older than 90 days, and that the article now has some sources that do not require significant cleanup or WP:TNT, I don't think drafting is necessary here. Thanks.  VickKiang   (talk)  22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some references to the article that might address some of your concerns. (Minot sidenote put in brackets: In the text section, there is just one claim now that is uncited. I'm still a bit concerned by La Excelencia section which I could not find any WP:RS or sufficient WP:ABOUTSELF. If  or  can find any refs to support this section ping me. Nevertheless, IMO this is fairly minor and not severe enough to merit a move to draftspace or WP:TNT). Thanks.  VickKiang   (talk)  07:54, 17 January 2023 (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.