Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulforge

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. Courcelles 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soulforge[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent sources. Local Talk Magazine is a little bit of local interest coverage. release not on important label. competetition not major. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this article i am the band manager, and it was approved by Wikpedia i formatted it to a better layout, i added links to most entries such as local talk to show readers the articles mentioned, so they can then read them. When you discussed " no real notabilty" maybe you need to re-read the article, this band has members from international known acts. this is a proper recording band. the Album artwork was done by Felipe Machado Franco, an elite renown artist for major label bands, this is our artwork the band PAID for, so this belongs to us, and as such has been placed here. I urge you to re-think the idea of deletion, as its unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matolocalypse (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read about Conflicts of interest, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Then read up about notability for bands. This afd is not about wether they are a real band or not, it's about are they notable?. This article has not been approved by Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Struggling to find a decent source.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (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.