Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Playboys (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 no consensus. North America1000 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The International Playboys
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band, no sources. 2013 AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I have added some references to the article. This ain't a major band, to be sure, but there is sufficient coverage in reliable publications to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk  02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Mostly local coverage, but just about enough wider coverage, with more linked from the band's website here. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I’m a bit on the fence with this one. I’ll give these sources credit: unlike so many similar WP:BAND articles on small, marginal bands, with a couple of exceptions they are at least third party and not blatantly promotional. My reservation is they are nearly all small time, insignificant sources, placing them more into the WP:E=N category. On the other hand, the Allmusic write up, while small, is legitimate. Although Allmusic as a source has considerably weakened in recent years, becoming essentially an online catalogue for any music that is available for retail, this entry was authored before the decline when they had more legitimate editorial standards. Still, it is the sole evidence of notability in my opinion. With just one or two more strong sources it could put them over the top, and I will gladly change my vote to keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 14 May 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.