Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widow Sunday


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Widow Sunday

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Challenged CSD. Not notable, fails musicbio. CSD challenged on basis of last 3 refs, which are not reliable sources. First 6 refs are blogs and/or self-published. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning Keep Some of the sources are borderline reliable. None of them are ideal from a notability standpoint, and I know there are those who reject the idea that a blog can be a reliable source. Looking specifically at and, (links to info on the sources, the coverage of the band is available in the ref section) they appears to be serious music publications, with, in the first case a staff of writers, and in the second a primary writer who has experience as a writer for mainstream media. Both provide the identities of their writers, appear to have and discuss their editorial standards, and both appear to be independent. I'm not sure if its enough to meet the threshold for notability, but I think it deserves discussion at the very least. (I dropped the third source I mentioned in the user talk comment after further review)  Monty  845  03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — I found mostly sources in the blogosphere, which are usually not reliable. I don't think the ones above or those that I turned up pass muster. Clearly this group exists, but it's WP:TOOSOON to call them notable, especially to the degree of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO because of reliable sources in particular, but also as to the alternative WP:MUSICBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 06:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2012 (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.