Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polly and the Billets Doux


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Polly and the Billets Doux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:Music and, to me, lacks the significant coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG (significant being the operative word, as there is the occasional small-scale coverage any band would generate). Standard COI/SPA creation for promotional purposes. Rayman60 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Slotted in a few sources. This is very much borderline, however a review in the Independent and Line of Best Fit add some weight. Karst (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. The Independent, Bath Chronicle, Fused magazine, York Press, and others - reliable if borderline regarding level of coverage. --Michig (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per The Independent, Fuse Magazine and other press just enough to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as the comment showing local coverage itself suggests it would be borderline, and it is because searches haven't found better, and WP:GNG is always outweighed by WP:NOT given we're not a band listing (history itself suggests it was used as the case) and the sources themselves then consist of event announcements, listings, interviews and other primaries, none of it amounts to substance so it's not "significant" regardless, and the nomination as it is "nothing independent and convincing". In such bare borderline cases that near closer to questionablity, it's best to Draft in that case until such better substance occurs. SwisterTwister   talk  23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most sources are trivial mentions or announcements. The Independent article consist of a 3 sentence mention. The online magazine, rapturemagazine.com, does have some in depth coverage of their second album but I'm not sure how reliable a source it is.The Bath Chronicle and York Press are announcements/interviews. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.   CBS 527 Talk 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable band going about its business with routine coverage. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2017 (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.