Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WU LYF

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Multiple issues regarding notability. Some attempts at CSD. Elevating to AFD for discussion. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With coverage already cited in the article from NME, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, and the BBC, plus these that could be added:, , , , and with airplay on BBC Radio 1, what exactly are these 'multiple issues regarding notability'? The band are clearly notable, and the latest attempt at speedy deletion was baffling given the coverage cited in the article at the time.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - the band has had articles written on them in several reliable sources, including the NME, the Observer, the Guardian (twice) and Rolling Stone. They have received coverage in several countries, including England, France, Holland, Austria and Italy.  Their current tour takes them to many different countries, including UK, Australia, Germany, France, Portugal, USA, Japan and Norway.  The article was previously deleted using CSD by the nominator and that decision was overturned at DRV here. Robman94 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No valid basis for deletion advanced. Article cites an array of reliable sources which in ordinary circumstances would demonstrate notability. There seems to have been an unusually strong push to summarily delete the article on an invalid speedy nom, as well as an unwarranted gutting of the article just prior to the AFD nomination, but neither of those remotely approaches grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to admit I'm usually pretty quick to try to pull the delete-trigger on band articles, but it definitely looks to me like the third party coverage here is enough to establish notability. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Given the coverage this band has received in major RS, the article should never have been nominate. Keep per all the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason for this band's notability is their intentional avoidance of all standards for notability. Although this reason may seem like the perfect recipe for allowing bands to subvert our standards of notability, this intentional strategy is documented in a reliable source. -- llywrch (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As shown above, notability seems to have been proven extremely well; Rolling Stone, BBC and everything. . . Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 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.