Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIDLAR

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The result was withdrawn. withdrawing nom with the assumption that those voting keep will improve the article with these sources (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIDLAR

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

unremarkable band. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. As indicated when this was deproded, even a cursory Google search is sufficient to demonstrate notability. From the first 3 pages of Google results: Pitchfork: [1][2], The Guardian: [3], Rolling Stone: [4], Allmusic: [5][6], LA Weekly: [7]. Dig just a little deeper and there is coverage from SPIN: [8], Exclaim!: [9], NME: [10]. Imagine what might be found from a thorough search. Utterly mystifying nomination. --Michig (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As what Michig said. buff bills 7701 22:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (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.