Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirsy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sirsy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor band. I cannot see how this passes WP:GNG except (possibly) technically. Recently edited by. Calton | Talk 13:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. The sound (and nearly unanimous) keep arguments in the first AFD have not been addressed, let alone refuted. If the nominator "cannot see" how the band meets notability requirements, they would do well to actually review the range of press coverage that a Google/GNews archive search turns up, including at least one review in national media (Village Voice), showing the band likely satisfies WP:MUSIC #1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12 in addition to the GNG. "Minor" does not equate to non-notable; the bulk if the items in almost any category are "minor" rather than "major". An encyclopedia strives to be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as possible A7 candidate. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that somebody loosely affiliated with the band edited the article recently is a bogus reason to delete, as is the tautology that it is technically notable, or that they are not very good (sorry, my opinion, from what I've seen and heard of them).  At least 200 out of 435 members of Congress, as well as a number of other politicians, would lose their articles, if that were valid.  It is well-documented that this band has toured extensively, all over North America; thus they pass WP:BAND, period.  They would play a gig anywhere, and, it appears, they have, from house concerts to festivals. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian regarding meeting WP:BAND but given this cursory (from the first page) there also seems to be reasonably clear evidence that the band would meet the WP:GNG. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 30 November 2013 (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.