Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quodia

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 delete.  Sandstein  18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of real significance (let alone notability) for this organisation. I only refrained from speedying it because I don't think we should delete such old pages (it's been around since 2006) on notability/significance grounds without discussion at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The group was notable at the time of it's creation, since it's a collective of two well known artists. It actually turned to be one item project, releasing only one album. All the requires information exists in Trey Gunn article. Since no new projects were created by this group and the last performace helf in 2007, it's real that no additional coverage will appear independently from Trey Gunn. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches only found a few passing mentions, nothing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Three weak sources:[1],[2],[3]. The last may or may not be RS, based on what I read here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sammy1339, how is the third one a reliable source? It's just a web magazine written by people with no credentials, as far as I can see. Are the others? The "about" page of the second one, according to Google Translate, makes it seem as if they publish everything from solid articles to press releases; we have no business trusting something they put up unless the person using it understands Polish or has otherwise examined the article carefully. Of course, if you do or you've done that, great; I'll trust your words. For whatever reason, Google won't evaluate the first source, and the page itself won't load directly for me, so I can't have an opinion. Could you comment at all about it? Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (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.