Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Voices / Outside Voices (2nd nomination)

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. Bold Snow close due to nominator seeming to withdraw their nomination below. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Voices / Outside Voices

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Could not locate additional coverage that wasn't just more announcements of single releases like what's already here. Some (not many) come from generally reliable sources, but the lack of reviews, charting, or other signifiers of notability does not impress me much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now. Totally forgot about that. My opinion clearly hasn't changed though. I don't question Alternative Press's reliability, but their coverage of this consists of a Q&A interview (essentially a primary source) which I don't think conveys notability. If that's the best we got then I don't think it's good enough for an article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same sources and stance I provided earlier in the year. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; reasons provided in the previous AfD nomination. You know my opinion. SaltieChips (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep adequately sourced article. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged to K. Flay. On a side note, if someone "launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now", does this not border on an "abuse of process"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs were months apart so I'm pretty sure I clear any minimum time requirements, and I volunteered the info before anyone voted so it could've been voted as procedural close if anyone felt it was inappropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then I request a procedural close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With it being all keep stances so far, I believe either a procedural keep close or a "nomination withdrawn" stance can still be done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does QuietHere wish to withdraw their nomination? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a keep so it doesn't matter. I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments which have been made in either AfD, but clearly I haven't convinced anyone else so I'm leaving this be now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:23, 30 December 2023 (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.