Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Twins

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Twins

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not have multiple secondary sources and has no demonstration of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability via secondary sources is concerned with the sources that exist, not the sources that are cited in the article. A Google search will find further coverage from Clash, NME, Music Week, etc. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability seems to be met based on Wikipedia:Notability_(music) --XPatchx (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the band has multiple reliable sources coverage in The Guardian, Clash, Music Week and NME so they pass WP:GNG as well as criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) and therefore deserve a place in the encyclopedia, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the band meets NMUSIC, it appears to pass the GNG, though the article could use improved referencing. Dedicated profiles in The Guardian [1], Vibe [2], and one paragraph mentions in Rolling Stone [3] and The Independent [4] are, I think, sufficient.

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.