Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xorcist

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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xorcist

[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)

Not notable. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the article is in sad shape and is one that I've got on my list to improve, but the artist meets WP:BAND #5 having multiple releases on 21st Circuitry (a notable indie that was acquired by Metropolis, another notable indie); most of his work under this moniker (and hence coverage) was in the 1990s though he has some releases post-2017, therefore most coverage is not found easily on the web. There may also be opportunity for expansion as Peter Stone to cover his work in video games. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's clear the article meets the criteria for notability (comparable to the Ministry of Sound article). The article definitely needs expansion with more sources, but that by itself is an insufficient reason for deletion, unless we want to delete most of the stub articles across Wikipedia. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the poor sourcing, I think we should get more opinions on this article. The nominator is requested to provide a more complete deletion rationale in future nominations...more than 2 words would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with above on WP:BAND#C5. Notability is presumed. We will not lack for a reasonable amount of WP:VERIFIABLE info, as we have a staff-written AllMusic bio [1] which can be relied on for music-related details. —siro χ o

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.