Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staunton (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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Staunton (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sign of notability; the only citation is self-published, and a Google search turned up nothing better. Narky Blert (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like an article for someone's garage band. Not notable... Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The one source (Squarespace) isn't even appropriate. There's nothing of note here, and it definitely fails Notability (music). Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources like this and this seem to cover the band very significantly. What do other editors like, , think about these?  Lourdes  13:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They've played at some venues but I'm not sure that meets notability guidelines. Which is a shame, because I actually looked up their album on Spotify and I thought it was great. If they aren't notable right now, then they will be someday. Even so I don't think these sources fix the problem... Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what do you think is the problem with these sources? In other words, why would you say that these source cannot be used to prove that the band qualifies on NMUSIC? Lourdes  16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging and .  Lourdes  16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't qualify for numbers 2-12 of notability:music, but it seems you're positing they have substantial coverage, which falls under number 1 anyway. I googled them, and could only come up with some low level local coverage. I just don't think they are there yet. Kbabej (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Cumberland Times-News looks an OK source, but it's pretty local. I'm an inclusionist, but for me this band doesn't cut it yet. If they in future get wider notice, I will applaud their sucess, and would argue hard for an article to stay. But as of now, no. (I've refrained from writing an article about Jumpin' Bad, damgud local band round my way with one member who rightly has his own Wiki article (couple of #1 singles) - but that band was in no way notable, it's not mentioned in his article, and I'm not going to add it.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the comments. Understandable. Lourdes  01:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per comments of editors above on the sources I've posted, and based on the subsequent interpretation of notability. Lourdes  01:52, 20 October 2016 (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.