Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walk (band)

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 This AfD has been open for more than 7 days. Six editors participated. Three editors registered as Keep. No one besides the nominator suggested Delete. The only debate was in regard to where sources should be placed or how they should be shown to exist. I am therefore making a non-Admin closure. — Keithbob • Talk • 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (band)[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:BAND or WP:GNG. The included articles mention the band but do not cover the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the articles about the band that I mentioned when I deproded it? --Michig (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to mention the existence of other sources about the band — you have to actually add them to the article as actual references for them to count. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subject is considered notable if the sources exist, not only if someone adds them to the article. Nominators are expected to follow WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim that other sources exist even if they actually don't. (This happens quite frequently, for the record.) We can't verify whether such sources actually exist if they're not actually added somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could Google it and probably find the ones I found. Thus they could verify that the sources exist. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not particularly well-sourced at this time, I'll admit, but it isn't entirely unsourced and it does make sufficient claim of notability to be keepable with further sourcing improvements. Weak keep, but only if Michig actually adds some of the Hamilton Spectator sourcing that was mentioned in the deprod edit summary. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's sufficient coverage to meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BAND #1 per Paul Erik.Argolin (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2013 (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.