Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locos Por Juana


 * 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 soft delete. No new comments since the first set, which leaned toward a possible WP:TNT deletion, so anyone who wants to improve this can request a WP:REFUND. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Locos Por Juana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:MUSIC Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Being nominated for a Latin Grammy satisfies WP:NMUSIC, but the article is in a atrocious state. The NPOV here is really off and comes off as an advertisement for the band. Article might need a WP:TNT. Erick (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I definitely believe WP:TNT makes more sense than deletion if we can agree the act meets notability standards, which it sounds like it does. That said, could the suggesting editor User:Magiciandude point out where the NPOV seems strongest? I initially assumed I would see it all over the article, from the description above, but on re-reading the article, the main part that seemed badly done was the lead-in section, which was sloppily written &mdash; see, for instance, the un-sourced sentence fragment about being voted Best Latin Band, a detail that belongs in the intro but in a full sentence and with a source &mdash; and seemed to introduce elements unnecessary to that section, if not to the article as a whole: e.g., the detail that they supposedly write and produce their own music &mdash; not only does that not belong in the opener, if it is in the article at all, it needs a citation of one or more reliable sources. The sections need re-titled, but I only see tiny bits of NPOV in the content (e.g., "famed" singer so-and-so). In summary, I think the answer to "Can This Article Be Saved?" (apologies to Ladies' Home Journal) is "yes," with small changes and added citations. Lawikitejana (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it was a quick glance that made me think the article was written like an advertisement. It might not be. But to me, that's beside the point. Erick (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - does not meet WP:BAND, has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" - the article was created by "ChristopherLopez22" and the user page for ChristopherLopez22 is all about the band, so there may be an undiclosed conflict of interest WP:COI - Epinoia (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2019 (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.