Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zilis


 * 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. for now as just passes GNG by a minuscule! If the sources haven't improved in a few months I recommend this being renommed, (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Zilis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a band whose only substantive claim of notability is winning a local music award in their own hometown — which is not a claim that gets a band past WP:NMUSIC all by itself. Further, the only cited sources are two blurbs about the band in the local alt-weekly newspaper in their own hometown, which is not sufficient coverage to even get them past WP:GNG either. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be suitably beefed up, but in this condition the article has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Just about squeezes past the notability threshold. Significant coverage in this interview. Coverage in the UK (i.e. non-local) here. They seem to be up and coming and there are other sources out there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. They may get there soon but at present there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to have an article. There's a bit of local coverage, but the Vents interview contains no independent discussion of the band, just band members answering questions, and folk radio uk doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. If anyone can dig up some further independent coverage in reliable sources I'm prepared to change my mind, but I didn't find any. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Articles entirely about the band in The Hamilton Spectator and the Burlington Post, which I have just now added, allow the subject to squeak by our notability guidelines (although of course it would be nice to have something at a national level of coverage). Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted due to some extra sources being added late in the discussion period - further input over whether notability is demonstrated would help form a consensus.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca  talk 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: the sources are either short or local, and the interviews, though longer, contain only some independent coverage. The Burlington Post source is a column to which bands can apply to be featured. On balance I would keep this, taking on good faith the Hamilton Spectator sources, which I have been unable to locate – adding a hyperlink would be very helpful. BethNaught (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2014 (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.