Unsigned band, never released a record, Kept at AfD as no consensus despite not passing any part of
WP:MUSIC. One editor produced some "coverage" of the band during the AfD which turned out to be three local news items about the band playing locally - two other editors voted Keep because of this, presumably without reading the sources.
Black Kite23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure DRV is not AFD_2, process followed, admin close within discretion range and doesn't preclude another AFD in a couple weeks. MBisanztalk02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Endorse From the comments made those who argued for keeping do appear to have looked at the sources - 'borderline notability' as one of them said. Reasonable close based on the consensus at the AFD.
Davewild (
talk)
07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Endorse, as I am the one who closed it. Couple of things here - AfD is not a majority vote, so the fact that there was one more person saying delete, than there were saying keep, should not be a point. Secondly, all of the users who commented on the AfD left some sort of comment, and all of the comments do make sense - most of which are relating to notability. It is clear that the article can be improved a bit, so maybe that should be the route taken here. Either way, there was no consensus to delete it, so it was kept. Just for the record, had I left a comment on the AfD, I would have said "delete" myself. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Of course it's not AFD2, but admins are meant to close AFDs not on vote count, but on the arguments provided. Can someone saying "Endorse" here please give a good reason how this band passed any part of
WP:BAND?? Where is even the borderline notability? I'll say it again - this is an unsigned band that's never released a record! Even bands that have record deals and have released multiple records sometimes fail
WP:BAND...
Black Kite16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Those who commented for keeping in the debate felt the coverage was significant enough to meet the main notability guideline. Personally I think the coverage is borderline. As the only argument used against this was they believed the article did not meet the notability guidelines, there is no policy based reason for the closing admin to disregard any of the arguments. If the closing admins are going to start using their own opinion on whether articles meet the notability guidelines then we start getting in trouble.
Davewild (
talk)
17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to make it clear, as I said above, I think the article does not meet our notability guidelines - but given the fact that there was no consensus at the AfD, I closed it as so. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply