Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woe Betides


 * 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. L Faraone  02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Woe Betides

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page asserts notability, e.g. the band have had "critical acclaim". They have at least had a record put out, albeit through a label they own, so effectively they are self-published. They do not seem to have charted. Yet they did get brief, albeit glowing, coverage from two magazines (Artrocker and NME) which clearly meet the "reliable sources" aspect of WP:BAND. I think it is unlikely the band is notable - for a sense of their scale/importance, based on their youtube presence, their most watched music video has around 1000 views while the majority have less than 100 views. A related article is their record label, Songs in the Dark, which may also not be notable. TheGrappler (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage from NME, Artrocker, CLASH, and Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there sufficient depth of coverage? This NME mention is very small as is this coverage in Artrocker. I was not sure whether this verged on trivial coverage. The scale of the EP release (100 copies) also seems quite limited. On the other hand Allmusic has more depth. TheGrappler (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Deep enough to support a short article. --Michig (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep due to NME review. Marginal, perhaps, but more notable than the average band articles we see at AfD. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 21 May 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.