Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cazals (band)

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. Star Mississippi 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cazals (band)

[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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in Spin (magazine) (rather short), Allmusic.com (rather short) as well as [1] Time Off, [2] DIY (magazine), [3] Drowned in Sound, Spectrum Culture as well as the sigcov intro to this interview in Dazed (magazine). Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thanks to Geschichte for finding these reviews but they basically just register that an album was released, or else they say the music is bad. One ([4])begins "Oh. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear." This was a band who released a record but did not attain notability. Llajwa (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A band doesn't have to be good to be notable Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, but if it is neither good, nor well-known, nor influential, the fact that it received dismissive reviews does not seem to establish notability. Llajwa (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been somewhat well-known at the time, although it did not last for very long. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, I can reiterate my belief that Llajwa's claims do not hold up in the slightest. What do others think of the multiple independent reviews? I'm not inclined to add them to the article if there's a chance of it getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Geschichte that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources identified above, and also charting evidence from the Official Charts Company: [5]. ResonantDis_tortion 16:17, 9 February 2024 (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.