Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Is Loaded (2nd nomination)

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. Reliable sources have been shown to exist and neither chart success nor national news coverage is required by WP:V, WP:N or WP:BAND to establish notability. Regards So Why 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X Is Loaded

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

Non notable band who fail WP:BAND. Only sites and refs found are fansites and myspace etc. Non relaible sorces found and tag confirms this therefore the non-notablity. Athe Weatherman 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - while a couple of reliable sources exist (a BBC review, for example), they are by no means significant. No indication of chart success. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that they have chart success for them to have an article under wp:band.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The BBC article is one leg of criterion 1 for me. I would be interested in hearing some views (especially from the UK) on Glasswerk. I see we have a number or WP articles citing to it. (or any more sources, such as the Bath Chronicle article hidden behind a pay turnstile). Am leaning keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. I see they've also come out with one album and a number of singles on notable labels--had it been two albums and no singles, the would clearly meet the wp:band criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Based on the BBC article, the other press, and the notable label releases.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Epeefleche said. There appears to be enough coverage to pass WP:BAND, with sources including two BBC articles [1][2] and one at Drowned in Sound [3]. Gongshow ^Talk 07:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BBC has regional divisions covering local news, these articles are from BBC Southampton. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still works for me; couple with the other indicia of notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think that local news show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe. Why not? As I read wp:music, the only requirement is that it be an RS. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with non-trivial coverage in independent sources BBC.co.uk, Drowned in Sound, North Wales Weekly News, and coverage (and therefore airplay, almost certainly) on Xfm radio [4]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 30 November 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.