Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vespas (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. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Vespas
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Band that released one EP on a minor independent label. I have rejected speedy deletion based on the courier article on the cancer care fundraiser, but I don't think that's enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has now been edited to include notability criteria:
 * Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Had there first EP 'higher' was no.1 on Play.com's chart, this is national(uk) and international website.
 * Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.

They also were in the City Sounds competition which got them coverage in the Evening Times Newspaper. After coverage in this paper the local papers wanted a piece of The Vespas, and the Coatbridge & Airdrie Advertiser printed stories as well as the courier in Dundee. see also coatbridge music scene in article. Furthermore evening times (non-trivial national paper).
 * Has won or placed in a major music competition.

stpatricks day battle of the bands this is the 4th largest festival of its kind in the world. (see wiki article St Patricks Day Festival, also UK2USA battle of the bands
 * Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

L107 radio play competition and uk2usa final broadcast on sky propeller 195 I have noted 4 points which are covered, also the a lot of charity work that is done by the band not covered by criteria is notable in itself. I therefore seek to remove the deletion banner following feedback.

The article is now referenced Craigster92(talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (GMT)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Commented on Craigsters talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Martijn said on your talk page.  The discussion needs to run a full seven days from the date on listing, which is today.  The discussion effectively never started before now, since the debate was not listed and thus could not get full community input.  Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In lights of newly added references. Is the subject of multiple articles from independent sources with editorial review at the Coatbridge & Airdrie Advertiser. I still think it's prudent to let AfD run its course, especially since it was originally tagged for speedy deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Martijn, there are more refs now and I've reformated some of them to be citations rather than external links. Robman94 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could Admin Please close the AfD discussion time is over has been two weeks now Craigster92 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * weak Delete.... no substantial third party coverage, most refs are mentions only. Locally notable at best. Hairhorn (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Local notibility is criterian for keeping(see above) 188.222.46.181 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, being "most prominent of the local scene of a city" as it says above, is nowhere near the same as being "locally notable", sorry. I also said locally notable at best, I am not even convinced they are locally notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep without prejudice to 2nd afd in future if no improvement.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Could an Admin please close discussion this article has been AfD since the 26th February it was incorrectly posted and reposted on the 8th of march, that means the article has been in AfD for 3 weeks -- Craigster92 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The AFD was only completed March 8, it's only been 9 days, which is not an unusually long time for an AFD with so few votes, although it should have either been closed or relisted by now. Hairhorn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (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.