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. Shimeru (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wykked Wytch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD ended with no consensus simply because only one editor contributed to the discussion after two relistings. I outlined the history of the article in more detail on the last nomination, but in hopes that a shorter explanation will entice more editors to contribute to this discussion, I will simply state the key issue: Wykked Wytch fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band most likely hasn't been signed to a record label with a notability enough to have a wikipedia article. The format is askew from that of the preferred format of band articles. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this fails WP:MUSIC as described. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has been the subject of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes both WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1: Allmusic, MusicMight, and a couple of Blabbermouth news articles: [1], [2].--Michig (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMight covers every metal band, even if they were a bunch of friends who just cut one demo and split up. In fact, users can register there and add information etc. Therefore, that cannot be used as a source to assert notability. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't always been the case - most bios are from the old Rockdetector site which was not user-editable. The content has also formed the basis of several published books.--Michig (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is also coverage of a legal dispute over the use of their name such as "Letter of the Law -- Wytch's Brouhaha: Demoness Ipek Clashes With Mark Warlokk --- Obscure American Postal Court Adjudicates Who Gets Their Mail" by Jess Bravin in The Asian Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2001. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not very good, and seems to be "making the case" rather than providing interesting or informative content, or providing references to support wp:GNG or wp:music criteria #1compliance. However, unless the statements contained are brazen lies (which I doubt)they indicate high likelyhood of the band meeting wp:GNG and wp:music #1. Given this high likelyhood of compliance, give the editors a few months to get this article in better shape with respect to the above... it could be given an AFD test at that time. North8000 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Allmusic indicates notability, also covered in VampireFreaks, a WP:RS. Poor article quality is a separate issue from notability. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right. I was thinking that the small overlap would be references in the article establishing the "coverage" aspects of GNG and WP:Music #1 of 12, but even that (references establishing coverage vs. references to back up the statements in the article)is still a separate issue, as you pointed out. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 14 April 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.