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) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article was deleted at AFD and the close was endorsed at DRV but further sources have been provided that bear further scrutiny.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

It appears that much of the coverage of this band is routine and the decision the AFD should probably look at involves whether the weight of marginal content is sufficient in the absence of two really good sources. As the DRV closer my role here is procedural so I take no position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do I understand that routine coverage of this band is insufficient to establish notability, the added sources are not "really good sources" and therefore perhaps this article should be deleted? What kind of source would be a really good source? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Sources 3 and 4 are the only coverage on that list I'd consider relevant. The rest is either run of the mill "they'll be here and here's a blurb about them" coverage or an event connected to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient coverage to establish notability. There was last time too, but for anyone with doubt, new ones are here, such as the coverage of the band itself in detail at [6] and [7]. Can anyone doubt those sources prove notability? Dream Focus 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On what basis are you making that argument? Would you care to explain why these sources are sufficient? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just said "coverage of the band itself in detail" and provided two links that happened at, it clearly meeting the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 14:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with previous comment - sufficent coverage is provided to establish notability. Dalliance (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are already plenty of sources which confirm the essential facts about this band - their membership, style of music, instruments, performances, reception, &c. The more we look, the more we find, and those listed by User:Dream Focus seem ample. Also, I recently noticed a substantial restaurant of this name as I crosssed Trafalgar Square and so have started to flesh out that and other topics of the same name. The band's article is now at Albannach (band). Warden (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uh no you moved the article during afd. i don't know why exactly but this causes trout slapping usually.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncle G explained the technical history of this issue in a previous case and his key point was that "The prohibition on renaming articles whilst they were being discussed at AFD went away." The guidance at WP:EDITATAFD is now "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)." The convention now seems to be to use the annotation née to show the original title at the head of the discussion. Warden (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Its good to have that cleared up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable Scottish band. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Were you going to provide a policy based reason why this is notable or are you going to be happy if the closing admin doesn't gove much (if any) weight to your blank assertion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While most would assume you mean that the coverage proves its notable, some people might get confused if you don't specifically say that. So please clarify for them. Dream Focus 15:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason to assume anything of the kind about what this user does or doesn't mean. Putting words in their mouth? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTABLE has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Would they be saying the band was notable for any reasons other than that? Anyway, clarify to avoid problems. Notable because it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines? Dream Focus 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dream, good advice, and of course you're exactly right about my thinking. I meant it's notable due to the detailed coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are even multiples articles entirely about the band, such as this one or this one from the the daily times , which you had already kindly linked to. Interesting to read the band passionately advocates Scottish Independence, which is now a highly topical subject. (Here in UK, but also internationally, analysts have been comparing it with other separatist movements like the Basque which have recently been gaining momentum). WP:GNG does not require even a single dedicated source about our article topics. So Albannach is so far past the notability threshold that I saw no need for a long comment, especially as you had already demonstrated the notability with perfect clarity. Hope no further clarification is needed as have to go to a Christingle and may not be back on Wikipedia for some time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination on the original AFD, still fails WP:BAND. I'd held back from recommending a course of action in this AFD until now to see if anything convincing was unearthed but I'm afraid it has not. Under the criteria for musicians an ensembles, would I be right in saying that there is nobody indicating the fulfilment of criteria 2 to 12, leaving us only 1 to consider? In which case we are looking at the band being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Looking at the 5 sources listed at the top: 1) is a press release in a university newspaper so running up against two exceptions for criterion 1; 2) is little more than a brief local paper article noting gig details, listing personnel, some broader details of the country the band come from, filled out a little with some quotes; 3) and 4) are noted above as being the more convincing of the sources but although they are more expansive, again it's local press coverage about forthcoming local gigs with almost everything to do with the substance of the band in quotation marks from members, the remainder being Braveheart and shortbread romantic colour or wider details of the event (as an aside, in citation 3) Johnston's wish for the separation of Scotland from a nation state may be attainable but I think he's heading for a disappointment regarding its separation from a land mass); 5) is coverage of a stabbing, the band incidental to this article. So really just 3) and 4) then? Two instances of fairly small beer coverage, largely reliant on (often rather fanciful) quotes from the band. It's not very convincing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I still feel that this is very borderline. There are enough sources to at least have a reasonably referenced article. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. References 3 and 4 means is passes WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems agreement that the situation is rather marginal and that references 3 and 4 above are key. Although I generally accept the remarks of those recommending "delete", it seems that WP:BAND, criterion 1 is actually met (as is WP:GNG). Except for instruction creep, these guidelines would remark that substantial "in passing" coverage improves the notability situation. The band scores on this account. Thincat (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, barely meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 27 December 2012 (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.