Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swound!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND, they have been tapped by some people for future success - but we are not a Crystal ball. Much of the sourcing is first party and the meat of their claims of notability is either unsourced or cannot be traced to any third party WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per above Liempt 06:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very week delete - Per nom. Tiptoety 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - BBC nod and several reviews from reasonably well-known internet press outlets tips me in favor. Chubbles 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I wrote a majority of the article but for good reason. A lot of fans have been asking about a page and I obliged. I realise you are not a 'crystal ball' but many underground bands still have fanbases and have to start somewhere.. I dont think their contribution to UK music is that insignificant.. however i do realise they aren't the arctic monkeys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.221.38 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, have some claim under WP:BAND criteria #1 and #11, although further references and details would help establish notability more clearly. Bondegezou 11:43, 27 September 2007 (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.