Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Beat

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. Tone 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Street Beat[edit]

[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)

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no indication of notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find better sources. All mention of the band I can find online seems to be as a footnote to coverage of its members; it's possible that offline or foreign-language sources can be found which demonstrate notability beyond what's in the article now, but as it stands, I don't know if this can (or should) be saved. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources emerge. jp×g 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some sources added but more are required. In theory this passes WP:BAND due to it being an "ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians". SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed you were able to find anything after I failed completely to do so, but I think it's still hanging by a shoestring here and I would want to see something additional before changing to Keep. jp×g 17:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting on the off-chance additional sourcing can be found. Currently the conensus is trending towards delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round here folks - anyone else see anything that would inspire them to change deletes to keeps? Or any other sourcing out there? Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is too skimpy and the article too poorly written to establish why this band is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage isn't sufficient for the subject to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG, and does not indicate notability of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:12, 9 May 2021 (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.