Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VHS Collection

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 no consensus. Of note is that additional sources were presented later in the discussion, which nobody else in the discussion has followed-up on to address. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VHS Collection

[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)

Does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. Presented sources are unreliable. Nothing significant found in Google searches. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notibility of band is poor, and existing material is not enough for a standalone article per
WP:BAND. 1989 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep does have an Allmusic bio here which normally indicates the likelihood of more coverage, also the axs article already referenced,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic bio does not grant straight forward notability, this has been discussed over and over at various Afds. Just like Forbes contributors, Axs contributor article can not be taken as a reliable source. At the bottom of the Quartz article, it is clearly mentioned that This article was produced by Quartz Creative on behalf of David Yurman and not by the Quartz editorial staff and that the article is sponsored by David Yurman. Finally, we do not keep articles based on probability, possibility or likelihood. Hitro talk 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. I see no evidence of either source being problematic with regards to Wikipedia, and
barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing more than trivial secondary coverage Here Here and here and there is more which leads us to
WP:HEY'd with an ambitious editor Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (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.