Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wants (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 no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wants (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

non notable local band thath asn't received any major coverage or critical reviews and has never charted. CUPIDICAE💕 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is notable coverage of the band published by international sources. NME, a British publication, published a review of the band’s debut album, Container. .  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a single review. I have a hard time believing a band with only a few thousand followers and virtually no coverage aside from one publication is notable. The metacritic reviews are aggregate including a rehash of the NME and from blogs. CUPIDICAE💕  19:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You shifted goal posts. You nominated this article because you said that the band "hasn't received any major coverage or critical reviews". I provided you a piece of major coverage - which is NME (a well-known piece of music journalism). One is better than none.  Yoshiman6464  ♫🥚 03:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, unfortunately there was an edit conflict and I don't care to rewrite my entire argument, but the band has been routinely covered by music critics to the point they are on Metacritic for receiving enough critical review/coverage. Rylesbourne (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Unclear whether GNG is met if NMUSIC is not Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's easily enough coverage around to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is an odd one. The sole RS coverage is a glowing review in NME, but it doesn't add up for a band that seemingly exists on a small level with a small following, garnering small time recognition among non-RS. My only guess is at least one reviewer for a notable source was impressed enough to write about them, but there needs to be more than one such example. I'm not convinced the editors voting KEEP have truly investigated the sources or clicked on the links to read the nature of the coverage. Or perhaps doing a google and confusing coverage for the two other bands with very similar names as coverage for this band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's hard to find good sources with a name as vague as this, but after multiple different search parameter checks I turned up little more than interviews, show announcements, and industry standard "they released a track"-type press. The NME page isn't a bad source, but it takes more than one solid article to demonstrate notability, and I'm genuinely not finding anything. Primefac (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of material in these cited Metacritic reviews. Meets WP:GNG.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Metacritic list reliable sources, they don't just add in anyone, they make certain they are a legitimate source of reviews. Significant coverage found there.   D r e a m Focus  12:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I'm really on the fence about this. While the other stuff on Metacritic may not be great, this article seems okay . This puts us at two decent sources and a motley group of mediocre/unverifiable sources. However, I lean against deleting, since I cannot verify the April 2020 Uncut and Mojo mentions on Metacritic, either of which would easily put the subject over the GNG. I would appreciate it if someone with access to those could share their thoughts. Toadspike (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2022 (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.