- 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. MBisanz talk 19:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Vale of Pnath (band)
- Vale of Pnath (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NBAND. The sources fail to prove notability as per #1 of the criteria. Sources are 1: the band's label, 2,7,9,10 sources from 2 web sites that do not meet the RS definition. 3,5,6 + 8: passing mentions, 4 the band's recording studio, Domdeparis ( talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis ( talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis ( talk) 14:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Weak Keep(see new comment below) - The nominator's footnote numbers are a little off, but this band has received passing mentions in Blabbermouth, Metal Injection, and Loudwire which are all reliable sources. I think basic notability is covered but would not dispute anyone who concludes that this band needs more notability to merit their own article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ Doomsdayer520: hi, normally passing mentions are not sufficent especially if the band doesn't meet WP:NBAND -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 10:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Passing mentions don't help get a band over WP:GNG. We require substantive coverage about the band, not blurbs or namechecks. Bearcat ( talk) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 08:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 08:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, or achieved anything musically of note. Mattg82 ( talk) 15:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - this AfD is probably still sitting here because I originally voted "Weak Keep" above while also saying that I could be convinced by anyone else who thought the band needed more evidence of notability. I have no need to dispute the comments above, so the Admins of this AfD can consider me to be in the "Delete" camp. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.