From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. J04n( talk page) 16:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Above All

Above All (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, either WP:NBAND pr WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I clearly found nothing better. Thanks for nominating this Walter Görlitz because if someone else including myself had nominated it and you hadn't come around yet, I would've notified you. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Once again the commonality of a name made it difficult to research. I couldn't find anything on the search engines which showed them to pass WP:GNG, but am open to re-evaluating if someone else finds good in-depth sources. Onel5969 TT me 20:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Research -- relevant sources (ie: mid-1990s UK metal/music magazines) would exist offline:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time needed for responses to the research posted above Spinning Spark 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I looked at the sources offered by Hydronium Hydroxide. Most of them fail to meet our definition of a WP:RS. Most of them are blogs and other first-party sources. The oxfordreference entry is certainly a reliable source, in the sense that it's independent and has editorial oversight, but it simply establishes that this exists, nothing more. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't suggesting that those links could be considered RS, but that they were breadcrumbs to (offline reliable) sources (potentially indicating notability). In the absence of such evidence being produced, then WP:DEL7 would apply and the breadcrumbs are at least listed for any future re-creation attempt. Cheers, ~~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~~ 11:57, 13 December 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.