Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papaya (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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya (band)

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

No evidence of notability. Random86 (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. As with Shinvi, I'd rather see some of these much older groups kept around for a little while for further evaluation. It's hard to find sources from 2001 and hard to know just how notable they may have been. Tons of new artists are considered notable with much less than two albums, because we have a glut of online sources for them. It's a natural result of temporal systematic bias. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 21:48, 6 January 2015 (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.