Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A'tris

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A'tris

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails

WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They seem to meet the "multiple sources" requirement at
WP:NBAND; in addition to the brief AllMusic profile, they achieved some reliable newspaper coverage: [1], [2]. There seems to be enough for a basic stub article, though the current text in the article needs to be reduced by a good 90% to facts that have been verified by someone other than their fans. On the other hand, they seem to have been ignored after some early good fortune. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If my "Weak Keep" vote above is the reason for all this bureaucracy, just consider it to be Keep and wrap this up already. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:40, 4 November 2020 (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.