Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black & Grey

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black & Grey

[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)

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

Articles about a band and their sole recorded EP, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is regional or special interest awards that are not prominent enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8 -- that is, they'd be fine if the article were properly sourced, but aren't "top level" enough to constitute an instant notability freebie on bad sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it -- but except for one newspaper article that briefly namechecks the band's existence without being about them in any sense, the band article is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the EP article is referenced only to a single primary source.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass WP:GNG on considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Black & Grey was PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the close in this RfC, there appears to be consensus that de-PRODed articles are eligible for soft deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, that's not my understanding. And given what I see from other admins closing discussions, that view is not shared by other closers as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find significant coverage of this band in reliable sources, which is required regardless of whether the band meets NBAND. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 2 March 2024 (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.