Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xarb


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Xarb

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article creator and NPP reviewers can’t agree on whether notability is demonstrated for this Pakistani band, so bringing to AfD for consensus. Personally I think it is borderline at best. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Insight 3 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to demonstrate the notability per WP:BAND. Refs are unreliable and primary interview type material except The Tribune. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Overall passes WP:GNG. The following are reliable Pakistani sources and when combined, give significant coverage for the subject:
 * Geo TV
 * Youlin Magazine
 * Dawn
 * The Express Tribune
 * Dunya News
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 02:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Insight 3, Geo TV: interview counts as primary. Youlin Magazine: Not reliable, just China Pak cultural website. Dawn: series of articles written by subject's member counts as primary. Tribune and Dunya is OK as I already mentioned M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Geo source is a feature, not interview. Quoting subject's words in-between doesn't make any piece primary. Youlin Magazine has an "about us" page and editorial oversight, therefore it should be considered reliable. Actually, its the Mangobaaz source which though gives significant coverage but is of dubious nature. Insight 3 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, Lacks enough reliable sources to satisfy notability.Alex-h (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the primary author of this article, it's hard for me to understand how there is serious debate that the topic of the article is demonstrably notable. As per WP:BAND the article cites multiple non-trivial and independent sources on its history and productions. The band has produced albums, their music is played on local radio, and they were prominently featured on a national televisions show. This band is about as notable as a band can be in Pakistan without yet having found an international audience.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sufficient international coverage of notability and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; highest achievement was second and third place in a "Battle of the Bands" show. Also lacks enough reliable sources for notability. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your other points may be valid but I must take issue with your statement that international coverage is required. Would you say the same if sources in an article about a band in a much less populous country, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, were limited to one country? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as newspapers The Express Tribune and Dawn and therefore passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep Just barely makes it, imo. Also, "international coverage" is most definitely not a requirement. Pichpich (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: deciding where the article subject falls with regards to WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST is challenging, with strong arguments to be made on either side. There is also the question of whether coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:SIGCOV. I will have to think about this for a while before I decide where to land. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep as WP:SIGCOV exists. These two articles are from reliable publications and are quite in-depth. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2023 (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.