Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutting Pink With Knives

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Pink With Knives

[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)

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:NBAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources beyond namedrops, interviews (explicitly debarred by NBAND C#1) and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this was. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it should probably be moved to Cutting Pink with Knives if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, their MySpace page is titled "Cutting Pink With Knives is dead," so I'd guess they did capitalize the 'with.' For what it's worth. Ravenswing 18:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting band. Their name alone caught my attention. And "electronic grindcore" - my brains are blown. Interesting combination. Here's an album review from Drowned in Sound which is a reliable source. Update: Sputnikmusic and a review of their concert with Polysics. This might do it. The rest of the results are the standard unreliable sites, stuff where the words are separated and sites of dubious reliability.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, found Drowned in Sound and Time Out, but that was about it... Caro7200 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting a third time because three sources which are possibly reliable and likely have significant coverage have been posited, which indicates GNG is met, but there has been no resulting discussion. Therefore consensus is not determined yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Happy to address those three sources. The second is a namedrop; the third is a casual mention three sentences long. Neither comes remotely close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. As far as the album review goes, no criterion in WP:BAND is met by multiple album reviews, never mind by a single one. (Notability for an album requires multiple reliable reviews in its own right.) I stand by my nomination. Perhaps this might wind up soft deletion, but I'd like to point out to the next closing admin that no one, as yet, has advocated keeping this article. Ravenswing 03:36, 27 August 2020 (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.