Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducktails (band) (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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktails (band)[edit]

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

This was afd'd before, deleted, then apparently reappeared, but there is still no credible claim of notability and some of the material back in the article is taken verbatim from the deleted version. I am placing this here for community input, but I should note that if consensus if once again for delete it should be WP:SALTed to prevent recreation. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable, and the reason it was deleted at AfD before was because it had been copy and pasted from userspace at a time when the sourcing was lacking, not because there was in any way a consensus that the subject wasn't notable. It was hugely expanded and sourced before being brought back to mainspace. Look at the coverage cited - notability can't seriously be questioned. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can be seriously questioned, the question is whether its relevant to the case at hand. In this case it may not be, if what you say is right. I'm indifferent to the outcome, just concerned about its apparent use of material in its previously deleted state. In fairness, articles of this nature always have a 50/50 for which way they will go, and if it turns out you're right then we are better off for keeping the article. In any event, sine no one ever seems to contribute to these things anymore, I thank you for taking the time to opine of the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems a clear pass of notability requirements for bands. Was previously deleted for, in my view, a strange reason. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the editing history and the rationale behind the prior deletion, we now have a substantial article, sourced in detail and including coverage in first-rate music sources like NPR, The Guardian, CMJ, and Spin, describing a clearly notable band. No reason for deletion now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2016 (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.