Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Welcome Wagon

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. Notable coverage satisfactory of guidelines has been demonstrated within the deletion discussion, references linked to in discussion not present within the article should be added to it in order to avoid future accidental AfDs. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcome Wagon

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

Non-notable band with no third-party sources. Google search turns up barely three pages of niche and music-download sites. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you saying there are no third party sources in the article (which is not a reason for deletion) or that no third party sources exist (which is wrong)? --Michig (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily enough coverage to satisfy notability guidelines: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: absolutely passes WP:BAND, as demonstrated by Michig above – I believe Relevant is also a reliable source, in which case there are a series of articles there about the band as well, starting with this one: [16]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's findings; subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. gongshow talk 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? I am believing otherwise; how else could so many secondary sources be missed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Michig has provided a profusion of reliable sources providing substantial coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those sources should definitely be added to the article Michig --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2017 (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.