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) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Icarus (band)[edit]

Kid Icarus (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested Prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7/band with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Spin magazine found them notable enough to write about them. And about 150 views per month show that people are referring to the article for info on a regular basis. Kindofdavish (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small article on Spin.com [1] falls a bit short for notability. Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find anything with significant coverage besides Spin, but one source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep: Per Gongshow's links except for the Allmusic bio. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is deleted album artiles would also be included under CSD A9. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe there's enough coverage out there for this to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. In addition to the aforementioned Spin profile, there's an Allmusic bio (along with reviews of two of their releases -- [2][3]), and another album review at PopMatters. I'll incorporate these into the article shortly. I've expanded the article with these sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very easily passess both general and subject-specific notability guidelines due to multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The article already cited the allmusic bio (with 2 reviews on the same site a couple of clicks away) and SPIN article at the time of nomination, so the AFD is itself a little puzzling and the speedy delete !vote above is utterly mystifying.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another lazy nomination, proposer clearly does not understand that most articles need expansion rather than deletion. Reliable sources exist which proove notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Gong's good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig's sensible comments. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 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.