Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hanging Stars

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 Moved to draft. The majority of respondents did not believe that this article did not quite meet notability requirements, and the one keep admitted this was borderline. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanging Stars

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

PROD removed without improving the article. Concern = Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:BAND Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I found sufficient notability to mark this as reviewed and contest the PROD (since when did removing a PROD require that the article be improved, btw? At least I gave a reason - not even that is required!) I am erring on the side of keep, though admittedly it is borderline: multiple plays on BBC radio ([1]) is not insignificant, and an indication that WP:BAND #11 or #12 has been met. I also found reviews and mentions in notable publications: Clash (magazine)([2]), Les Inrockuptibles ([3]) and Q (magazine) ([4]), for example, which seemed sufficient for inclusion. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improving a PROD is not obligatory, but it is suggested at WP:DEPROD (a policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy for now as I found nothing better and even the links listed above aren't swaying and convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I found much the same sources that are identified above. Not really sufficient coverage to merit an article at this stage but there seems to be sufficient interest that further coverage is likely, so keeping as a draft for now seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2015 (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.