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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability issues, potentially WP:SOAP. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Keep per WP:MUSIC. I did not write this as promotion. The band released multiple albums on important indie labels per WP:MUSIC, and it had three reliable sources cited at the time of nomination. Chubbles (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless other editors think Ghostly International is not a "major indie label" per NMUSIC. But see this. Mottezen (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sources are, in order of RS: youbtube clip (to support an OR statement); a one paragraph record review in a Scottish events mag; a one paragraph record review in Exclaim, a Toronto based music mag; Allmusic bio (which alone does not necessarily establish notability). Acousmana (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim also published this longer text on their debut. Mottezen (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the YouTube clip (not my addition), those are three fine sources. Very much in line with what you'd expect from music journalism. Chubbles (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

disagree they are fine, barrel scraping with respect to "journalism," if these were reviews in national press, or one of the webzines we generally do accept as RS for music content - written by notable muso journalist - perhaps, but these? Acousmana (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinny, Exclaim, and Allmusic are all already webzines/databases we generally accept as RS for music content. See WP:MUSICSOURCE. Chubbles (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still think this is a stretch based on coverage presented, out of interest, if you haven't seen, current RS discussion re:Allmusic and notability. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as AllMusic, Exclaim and The Skinny are all well established music reliable sources. Exclaim is probably the second most respected music source in Canada. They have also released albums on a notable indie label so passing criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC ( only one criteria needed) in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I would say that there is just about enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass NMUSIC and criterion 5 is met, as above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 10 March 2021 (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.