Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shores: Difference between revisions
Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) |
Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
||
:{{la|1=Shores}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shores|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 |
:{{la|1=Shores}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shores|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 2#{{anchorencode:Shores}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1208144028/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
||
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Shores}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Shores}}) |
||
Article about a band, not [[WP:RS|properly sourced]] as passing [[WP:NMUSIC]]. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage ''about'' them and their music to pass [[WP:GNG]] -- but four of the seven footnotes here are [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCES|primary sources]] that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're ''all'' the third party coverage this band has.<br>Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
Article about a band, not [[WP:RS|properly sourced]] as passing [[WP:NMUSIC]]. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage ''about'' them and their music to pass [[WP:GNG]] -- but four of the seven footnotes here are [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCES|primary sources]] that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're ''all'' the third party coverage this band has.<br>Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''Weak Keep''', This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--[[User:Panther999|Panther999]] ([[User talk:Panther999|talk]]) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
'''Weak Keep''', This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--[[User:Panther999|Panther999]] ([[User talk:Panther999|talk]]) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Shores]]</noinclude></p> |
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Shores]]</noinclude></p> |
||
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000">✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%">plicit</span>]] 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Shores]]</noinclude></p> |
|||
Revision as of 00:11, 2 March 2024
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not addressing any of the content since 2012, but the version of the page that stood for half a decade before that, Special:Permalink/130728486, definitely seems acceptable and not deletion-worthy. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep, This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--Panther999 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)