Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving Units

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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Units

[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)

Lack of sources BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 06:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 06:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Additional presentation of reliable coverage satisfies notability guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, their albums get reviews on Pitchfork (website)[1][2] or Popmatters [3] or Spill Magazine[4] or Soundblab[5]. They have a biography at Allmusic[6], interviews in the Las Vegas Weekly[7] and the Washington TImes[8], the Santa Barbara Independent[9], attention in Billboard[10], MondoSonoro (in Spanish)[11]... Oh, and an article in the New York Times[12]. Can the nominator and the delete voter please explain what kind of search they actually did to find no sources, as it is a bit hard to see how they achieved that result... Fram (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram. Occasionally album articles initially end up being better sourced than the band article. Caro7200 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously needs to cite more sources. When I saw the additional sources uncovered by Fram (talk), I checked them out as some of those publications/sites are either small time or have an uneven track record of containing both legitimate coverage and promotional disguised as coverage. In this case, I'm happy to say there is enough significant coverage to pass muster. Nice legwork, Fram, in hunting down enough to save an entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified in this discussion that show that both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC are clearly passed imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 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.