Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BY2 (band)

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. Coverage does seem to exist in apparently reliable sources, but there are reasonable points made that these sources may not actually be independent. The answer to that dispute is unclear; but in the absence of a consensus either way we shall default to keeping the article. ~ mazca ^talk 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BY2 (band)

Despite considerable discussion and prompting between myself and the author of this article, there has been no attempt to prove notability or verifiabilty except by reference to press releases from the record label or to fansites or blogs; contra to WP:BAND musician criteria 1.
Also a previous article on the same subject By2 (duo band) was deleted in April under CSD A7. I haven't re-proposed on the same grounds as WP:BAND musician criteria 5 may apply. NtheP (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after reading the article and a quick gnews search I can find nothing is assert notability.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources with Google News. In the English-language press alone there is [1] [2] [3] for example. I'd say there is enough significant coverage for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it shows info well abt the musicians and also, collabrates a summary and main points frm all over the news. ppl may find this useful. keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglun (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having looked at the news sources quoted they do seem to be just press release type stories issued by a record company and don't establish notability of subject. NtheP (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed the sources uncovered by Paul Erik and they represent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They may be a bit fluffy in style, but that's rather expected in entertainment reporting. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's fluffy as in bone idle and just reprint the record company press release :-) Despite being the proposer of this deletion I'm really pretty neutral about it and if those articles are enough for WP:V then fair enough I'm not going to argue. NtheP (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I don't see how they even appear to be press release reprints. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - if you don't you don't. Perhaps I'm just to jaded and cynical but they have record label puffery all the way through them to me. The first two especially have numerous quotes from Billy Koh - who just happens to work for their record label NtheP (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.