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. Tone 09:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Bad Suns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The way I see it here is like this: neither the band, their only single (which redirects to their album), or the album itself fall under NMUSIC (or GNG for that matter). I tried to find significant coverage. Really the only mention of them comes from a Huffington Post writer’s list of favorite albums. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep When i saw article references i was amazed why Trillfendi nominate the afd but after entering into billboard tagged references i found that it was just an hoax. Expect huffpost all references are hoax and can't find any reliable sources but again i looked into there album article and find out that they have been charted there which i quite notable. So, i want to change my desicion here as keep. AD ^Talk 07:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Wait here i just found out that they are charted in billboard [1] which is notable. They are notable here. AD ^Talk 08:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

You do realize that having charted on Billboard is not automatically notability, right... (even if that was, having only 3 appearences, peaking at 24, 41, and 109, and not one single charting doesn’t cut it.) It certainly doesn’t supersede an absolute lack of significant coverage. Not whatsoever. Trillfendi ( talk) 08:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Note: Quick note - charting can be something that can establish complete notability depending on where it charts (see WP:NBAND, criteria #2). Also, keep in mind that there are reviews for the band's albums, which would establish notability (criteria #1). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I have yet to see a reliable music source review their album. In fact when I tried to look for some, the Wikipedia page came up. I have not found anything that gets them sigcov. HuffPost on its own certainly doesn’t do that. I think this is a case of too soon right now. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as plenty of coverage can be found with a proper search. Not only music/video coverage, but also the Zia symbol controversy. Some examples: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I still saw none of that from my original Before even after going several pages. Doesn’t significant coverage mean not having to pore to even get the bare minimum? If there was enough significant coverage it would be right there. I get the MTV source (though the song itself technically isn’t notable), but a low-frequency California tabloid, and a local affiliate? Really grasping for straws. That’s why I believe this article is a too soon-er. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The consensus guidelines about WP:SIGCOV are clear. Please remember that no one is obligated to satisfy you. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I’m just my opinion, it’s not a damn edict. I don’t see how a tabloid or local affiliate is on par with an MTV with regard to notability. Trillfendi ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep As a simple user (but a donating one) I found this article informative while doing a search on the band. I could care less about their notability. They existed, they have music you can download from iTunes, their footnote on history deserves to be here. Maybe the article needs to be improved but it certainly doesn't qualify for being deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.14.78 ( talk) 19:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

A band’s “existence” let alone being on iTunes isn’t notability for a Wikipedia article. My God. I’ve met street buskers who have songs on Apple Music, all one has to do is fill out an application! Does that make any artist notable in itself? No. iTunes has millions of songs, which doesn’t correlate to Wikipedia articles. Where is the logic. A simple user who clearly doesn’t understand policy. Trillfendi ( talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Trillfendi: Can you please clarify what you mean by "Some of you people are a lost cause." in your edit summary for the above edit? It seems like a gratuitous personal attack, and I'm hoping that's not what you intended. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bakazaka: It’s not a personal attack; nothing about AfD is personal. Lost cause simply means it’s futile. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Trillfendi: If you didn't intend it as a personal attack, great. I encourage you to be more careful with your language in edit summaries, as "you people" might be taken to mean actual people. WP:CIVIL applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Three placings on the US national chart, and sufficient reliable source coverage (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) satisfies WP:NMUSIC. -- Michig ( talk) 08:19, 12 January 2019 (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.