Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (band)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No (band)

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

Band appears to have minimal coverage and little notability. While most of its former members seem to have achieved notability separately, this can't be said for the group itself. Attempted redirect to one of its members, but this was reverted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Directly satisfies WP:MUSIC#6 with respected music writer Dr. Marcus Breen noting of the band "Marie Hoy and Ollie Olsen are almost legends in their own lifetimes". That Breen article itself is a full article about them in a mainstream major newspaper. Combine that with coverage from Ian McFarlane and we already have decent coverage for a late 80s Australian band. And that's without yet considering Dan's expansion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and new sources. This is an example of the 1995 year-zero effect, where print-only coverage never made it to the Web. e.g., there will have been a ton of coverage in RAM and Juke. But the recent additions help a lot. There's also a Forced Exposure interview that I'll add at some point. No were a significant and influential band, presaging a huge amount of '90s industrial metal - even as Olsen himself went techno - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, satisfies a number of the criteria under WP:BAND. Is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the ban itself. Dan arndt (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 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.