Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shallow Side

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow Side

[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, I can find no independent coverage in independent sources other than schedules and track listings and what not. funplussmart (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, they have an AllMusic biography [1] and have charted on one of the specialist Billboard charts [2], for starters... Richard3120 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per Richard3120, passes WP:MUSICBIO#2 Ceethekreator (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A song charted, so despite the difficulties in finding in-depth coverage, the band is notable. If Billboard magazine reports that a bank charted, the band is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs a lot of work but as stated above they have coverage in reliable sources and have charted as verified by a reliable source so the article should be kept and improved IMHO Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources cited on the page currently. I guess it fails WP:GNG as it is.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because it does pass the SNG (twice). I see no argument made that this is an exception to the idea that the SNG acts as a shortcut for GNG and so we can presume it notable here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's stubby, but Richard3120's sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. I've added the sources and an assertion about the charting.GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Billboard reported that the band charted, therefore it is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the risk of repeating what has already been said, the fact that they charted affirms their notability. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2019 (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.