Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official Secrets Act (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. (non-admin closure) Sarah (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Official Secrets Act (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:NBAND. 2 minor articles in The Guardian, 1 Press release like article at NME. 1 Album that has not charted. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets notability guideline easily. Judging notability solely by sources cited in an article is a very bad idea. Even a cursory scan of Google would have shown what a poor way that is of judging notability. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for keeping. WP:GHITS explicitly discredits this. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to count the number of hits, but to look at the coverage that it brings back. You'd have to be bothered enough to do a Google search in the first place of course.--Michig (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG:, . Northamerica1000(talk) 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First Guardian article is for "New Band of the Day", so concieveably featuring 365 new bands every year and therfore not indiscriminate in it's coverage. Second Guardian Article is not the level of significant coverage that we expect for coverage.  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. (From WP:GNG).  All I have seen in my research has been non-significant coverage that does not elevate them to the level of coverage.  In addition the Specific Notability Guideline is the one we're testing here. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're testing either WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. You don't get to decide which notability criteria applies.  And as for discounting the Guardian's New Band of the Day, it may not carry as much weight as a big cover feature, but it still contains material that can be used in a WP article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As well as the 2 Guardian articles, musicOMH review, and NME article cited in the WP page, there's reviews other articles and more brief news. If a band gets multiple stories in NME and The Guardian, and coverage by the BBC, Q, and Aesthetica, and reviews in listings guides from London to Scotland, then it's certainly got a reasonable amount of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 July 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.