Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XYZ (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

XYZ (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

To quote, "it was corrupted by two known sock accounts (possibly a third) which affected the outcome (see below). XYZ lasted only two rehearsals before splitting, with no official output." and "Without the sock votes, the margin would have been 3 (to delete) to 2 (to keep, one of which was a weak keep)." See user's comments at this AFD. Also, the article is super thin on sources; I would agree that a band that only rehearsed twice is not notable per WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: To add to the above, XYZ produced no official recordings. XYZ wasn't even an official name - There was no decision to use it. It should be noted, this XYZ should not be confused with an American band of the same, which did record albums and tour. PaulHammond2 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the songs from this band were later reworked and released. --I&#39;m with Coco (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand an issue has been raised with the previous AfD, although I would have thought that its outcome would still have been "no consensus" (and thus the article kept) without the queried contributions. To largely repeat what I said in that previous AfD, I think this was a significant project, even if nothing was ever (officially) released. It has something of a legendary status. Several released pieces of music did arise from these sessions (one by The Firm and two by Yes) and the article material is appropriately cited. I think there is an argument that it is better to cover the material in its own article than repeat it over the Yes, Led Zeppelin and The Firm (and possibly Chris Squire and Jimmy Page) articles. That said, if the outcome of this discussion is to delete, please do make sure the content is salvaged and I'd stick it in the Yes article to begin with (as the project makes more sense within the narrative of Yes's history). NB: The unconnected band of the same name has an article at XYZ (metal band). Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I note 7 other language's Wikipedias have felt the article is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like copies of the English article - All of them contain the same unsubstantiated claims that were recently removed from the English language article. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The German one is clearly different. Not saying this is a winning argument or anything. Just that it should give a moment's pause for thought. 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already seen the german page - it's no different from the the English article before the unsubstantiated claims were removed. The only difference is that it added the bootleg songs from the English article into a separate section. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the german article is worse - it's still included the claim removed some years ago from the English article that ""Run With the Fox", which is based on an XYZ-tune as well (December 1981)" - which is not true. Run with the Fox is not based on an XYZ tune. Whoever wrote the german article simply copied the English version from many years back, when that error still existed. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Simple Google Books search shows more than enough coverage, some contemporaneous, to write an article and establish notability. While not themselves reliable sources, the number of circulating video/audio clips relating to the band that barely was (eg, ) also indicate enough notoriety to suggest notability. The nature of the project means there's no single suitable merge or redirect target, another signal that keep is the best option. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Two unfinished bootlegged songs is hardly notorious nor notable. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's four unfinished bootlegged songs, but that's not really the point. This is clearly an unusual case. As such, I think the keep option is based on general WP:GNG arguments because this isn't a case that fits the usual WP:BAND criteria! 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (Many apologies -- I wasn't logged in. The above and the comment about the German article were me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Its not that unusual - a "band" (it never really got to that stage) that had two rehearsals then vanished is not notable. Perhaps you should give a moment's pause for thought, that you're love for Yes has perhaps clouded your position PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Two rehearsals? Agree with TenPoundHammer. This is not a notable group. Almost all of the information for XYZ comes from fanboy sites. Unprovenanced bootlegs on YouTube isn't a reliable source either. SteamboatBilly (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. References establish notability. --Niegrzeczny (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. Most references are from fan sites. Bootlegs don't establish notability. Laetoli2 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sourcing available to establish notability. Easily meets WP:BAND criterion 1 (multiple independent sources) and criterion 6 (two independently notable musicians). 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies several criteria in WP:BAND. --Tagtool (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one is an unusual case about a maybe-supergroup that never got off the ground. But this one has been covered in old sources as an item of historical interest. Some of the folks in favor of deletion are forgetting that not all old things are covered online, and you have to remember the dead trees standard for stuff found in crusty old paper books. The band has been covered and is strangely notable, just not in the usual way. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (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.