Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaming Fire

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Fire[edit]

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

Band itself does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Can't find any references to just the band. Sources on the page are either concert listings or just talk about the group's "Eternal Christmas" installation. Looking for opinions on this one. avs5221 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puffy writing, no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete C6541 (T↔C) 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced by multiple sources, including the New York Times. Dew Kane (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject (not just a band, but an artist collective) has had sufficient coverage of its work to meet the general notability guideline, including articles in The New York Times, Vice, and I also added a feature article about them from the Omaha World-Herald. Furthermore, the article I added which was carried on the newswire Religion News Service was reprinted in the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Times-Picayune, and the Regina Leader-Post. The World-Herald article states that the group's illustrated Bible project has had "worldwide" interest. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per typical, excellent work by Paul (better for noms to do it, and avoid this entire process next time).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2010 (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.