Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity Reggae 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 delete. Only argument for retention was based on passing mention in sources, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Reggae Band

I A7 CSDed this a while back, but was then persuaded that the local coverage was at least enough to be an assertion of notability, invalidating my A7. But even so, with only that one peg to hang notability on, I just do not see the group rising to the level of WP:MUSIC that is needed. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was nominated for deletion before. The result was keep because it met WP:BAND criteria for notability, as it had been covered in a mainstream newspaper.--Loodog (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are misremembering the history. It has never been through a full deletion debate, and thus never closed "Keep". The history you are remembering was with me, and A7 Speedy Deletion. I A7 deleted it, you pointed the one local coverage article out to me on my talk page, and I reversed myself and restored the article. The point was that the one article was enough to invalidate my A7 deletion. but that was Speedy Deletion and this is a full AFD deletion debate. The key difference in this case is that the two have different thresholds of notability that must be passed. A7 Speedy Deletion just needs an assertion of notability to be invalidated. The local article gives that. AFD requires fully meeting WP:BAND. And it is my position that the one local article is not enough to meet that threshold.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to correct the history of the page, that it has not been through a previous full deletion debate, but only shown that it was not eligible for Speedy Deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage does not go beyond the trivial, no indication albums are on an important label. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 00:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more. None have URB as the main subject though do mention them:
Sunday News
Washington Post
New York Daily News

And anything turning up in A news search. --Loodog (talk) 02:02, 2 June 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.