Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusty & Stones

:{{la|Dusty & Stones}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dusty_%26_Stones Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Dusty & Stones}})

Literally none of this actually establishes independent notability and substance and my own searches found nothing but these same local news stories, there's basically nothing at all for both convincing and an actually acceptable article, account was literally solely used for this one article. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep has coverage in The Swazi Observer a Swaziland national newspaper [http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=54314 here] which is substantial coverage in a long article, also has other newspaper coverage and passes WP:GNG. The band is not just local because they have had airplay internationally including Ireland. A lot of new editors are put off by the deletion process as this one may have been as it went through BLPPROD shortly after creation. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on Google save for the above source and one other. Having a feature in a Swaziland paper is nowhere near enough to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Swaziland is a small country but not tiny, it has a population of 1.15 million. AFC guidance for GNG are 2 rs sources so this should pass despite constant efforts to raise the GNG bar without consensus. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• With all due respect, the population of Swaziland is irrelevant to this discussion. In that regard, then every American band warrants a Wikipedia article no matter how minimal their presence, based on our population alone. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• The point I meant was that a Swaziland national newspaper should not be discounted due to the size of Swaziland Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• Simply being a national newspaper is not itself an automatic basis of notability, exactly what we would say about every other country, and therefore there's next the considerations of what the contents are, and in this case, it's a local news story about a local band, and the others found are exactly this. Therefore to found a single "It's notable because of a local news story" is not at all convincing and we have established as such at basically any other AfD, regardless of even what the subject was; as is the fact it was featured in Ireland simply as part of trivial airplay, that itself is not convincing.
  Then "A lot of new editors are put off by the deletion process" is not something that should affect how deletion is and still works, because like anything, deletion is necessary to remove the unconvincing articles, this one included. WP:GNG is not applicable when the concerns are outweighed by the fact the article is still an unconvincing article, and there being nothing else to substantiate a better article, there's nothing to improve. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I disagree, it is a national paper article about a national band that has won three national awards and received international airplay Atlantic306 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• If this band has supposedly received international airplay and won awards, why are there no third-party sources to back it up? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple articles in the Swazi Observer (I count three), coverage in the Times of Swaziland (added to the article), coverage by the [http://mg.co.za/article/2012-07-06-00-getting-high-on-a-feast-of-southern-african-festivals Mail and Guardian], a couple of posts in South African arts blogs. Coverage over 4 years in multiple news outlets in different countries, certainly seems to pass GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.