First I have to say that I'm not sure if this is the correct page for my request. The article has been deleted by User:Cirt on the basis of non-notability. I've rewritten it in my user space (see User:Siechfred/Barad (band)) and think that the band passes WP:BAND. Their album was one of the top ten albums in Iran 2003 and they appeared on a Rough Guides sampler about the music of Iran. I think, that my draft can be moved to NS0. Siech•FredHome08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as above. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claims to notability are weak, vague, and unspecific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation reliable and verifiable sources provided in the userspace article and available elsewhere support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Cirt's "delete" closure of the uncontested deletion nomination, but allow recreation per Phil Bridger (and do not procedurally relist at AfD). –Black Falcon(talk)04:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was closed as keep despite the fact that there appeared to be no consensus and a small number of commenters. The discussion should have been relisted or at least closed as "no consensus" instead. User:Ruslik0 closed the AfD stating simply, "The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source." After I inquired about the closure, Ruslik0 stated that the article was verifiable and the close was based on the strength of the keep arguments. However, the article was originally nominated on the basis of non-notablity, and the pro-deletion arguments were not weaker than the keep arguments. OCNative (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was to keep. In my analysis of the debate, Edison's "delete" vote should be accorded less weight because he voted before sources were found. Racepacket's "delete" vote and OCNative's nomination are valid opinions but consensus was not with them in the debate. Mandsford, TonyTheTiger, Bearian, and CastAStone all had strong arguments as to why the article should be retained. Because the "keeps" had a slight numerical majority, and because their arguments were reasonable, a "keep" close is reasonable. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not agree that there was "a small number of commenters". This number was actually quite high, and relisting did not make sense. Ruslik_Zero10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have tended towards a no-consensus closure myself, but that comes out the same ultimately. There was certainly a sufficient number of contributors. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, looks fine to me. A no consensus close would have been okay too, but honestly if it had been me closing it I'd have called that one a "keep" too. ~ mazcatalk12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; I'd be fine with either keep or no consensus; and the difference between those two closes is so slim to be barely worth a DRV. (Unless someone wishes to immediately re-nominate it) I'm not seeing anything in the AfD debate to justify an overturn to deleting the article, so endorse the close as within admin discretion between keeping and no consensus. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep and no consensus were both open to the admin here; delete most certainly wasn't. In any case, overturning to "no consensus" would be pointless procedure. Even a "keep" can be renominated after a reasonable period of time. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The consensus in the discussion was to keep the article. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping on the basis of the existent of reliable sources covering the subject. Two votes to delete (based on the issue of "local" coverage) were valid but outweighed. The other vote to delete deserved given little weight due to the subsequent location of sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
