Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango in the attic
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tango in the attic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band - fails WP:BAND. ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep band has been covered by a national Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman; added to article. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not enough for WP:BAND, item 1. – ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: They've been covered by another national Scottish newspaper, The Herald. How many more do we need? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Well, you can read WP:BAND for yourself, but it says Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works .... Two ≠ multiple. – ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Where should we set the goalposts? We have two articles from The Scotsman, one from The Herald, one from The List, one from STV... nothing especially earth-shattering, but they all pass the test in terms of reliability and non-triviality. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient evidence for notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG and #1 criteria of WP:BAND. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:58, 15 October 2010 (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.