Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocturnal Sunshine


 * 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 delete. MastCell Talk 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nocturnal Sunshine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I came here to add a dab link to Maya Jane Coles who uses the same name but this band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, searching for sources is made difficult by Maya. If this is deleted, please replace the page with a redirect. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  16:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;   16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but why is this getting repeatedly relisted? It seems pretty uncontroversial that the band is non-notable? e.g.   nothing here, the article says the band "are relatively unknown" and "set to release an album in 2010" so no one's even maintaining it, what are you actually waiting for? Can a discussion now not be closed unless it has a certain number of comments on it or some other ridiculous nonsense criterion? I'll remember to just use PROD in future... - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;   09:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes when people don't respond to entries here at Articles for deletion, listings are re-listed in hopes of obtaining consensus. Sometimes Wikipedia administrators don't actually view the links and analyze notability of the topic, and instead just base the verdict upon consensus in the discussion; while the former is preferential (topic notability analysis), sometimes time constraints prevent this, and the latter occurs (consensus per the discussion). Northamerica1000(talk) 10:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that relist was only supposed to be used in cases like where everyone votes delete due to lack of sources for the first 6 days then someone says "keep, I jsut added 100 sources" on day 7, or when the only votes are vague and contradict each other ("d nn" and "keep - useful"), not when there's no controversy whatsoever. I have noticed AfD discussions are taking longer and longer to close recently. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  10:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD has a large backlog at this time. Sometimes people spend more time debating topic notability rather than simply finding/adding reliable sources and improving articles, when significant coverage in reliable sources is available. I've rescued many articles that would have likely been deleted, per "consensus" in AfD discussions, because they were based upon the consensus to delete for the sake of deletion, rather than actual Notability guidelines. I've noticed this disturbing trend for quite some time now. Perhaps it's all about maintaining an impetus for deletion, rather than actual topic notability, at least in some cases. Of course, some topics don't receive enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to qualify topic notability in Wikipedia, but not all of them listed in these AfD discussions are automatically non-notable per just being listed. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No notability provided after two relists. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this band. At this time, the topic appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline for inclusion as a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per GNG. Sarah (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow  Talk 22:59, 16 May 2012 (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.