Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/31Knots

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31Knots

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

Non-notable music group fails WP:BAND. Lagrange613 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Jsayre64 (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a large number of reviews and articles to be found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and AMG has a biography and full reviews for most of their albums [12] [13]. Even if some of those sources were not completely reliable, notability is met overall - frankie (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my opinion will be changed if the article is expanded pronto with some third-party sources. I searched for news articles (at the link above) and turned up 87 items, but the first five (randomly chosen) are passing mentions. An interested editor should easily be able to cull the wheat from the chaff—if there is any. —EncMstr (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but you cannot use the threat of deletion to force volunteers to improve articles you aren't interested in. The only issue at AFD is ascertaining whether a viable article for the subject could exist in accordance with policy and guideline. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read EncMstr's comment as saying that he doesn't think they're notable but is prepared to change his mind given some evidence. I think he merits a bit more good faith than you're giving. Articles get improved under threat of deletion all the time. This is good for the encyclopedia. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to lobby for an Articles For Improvement process, where articles that do not get improved by interested parties are deleted on the say-so of the disinterested, please do so at the village pump or some such place. If it's really so good for the encyclopedia, you should have no trouble getting it up and running. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. I have not been able to locate any non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. — Satori Son 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per frankie's reliable sources: principally the All Music Guide writeups, but also Sun Herald, Salt Lake City Tribune, The Stranger et al. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2011 (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.