Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog Sun (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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Sun (band)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Credible coverage has already been verified under amends of federal rights laws under 4th amends. Verification lies within hyperlinks to getty images, etc., referring to the credible media coverage of said band members as established under vast national media outlet coverage. Therefore this page, "Dog Sun (band) is to remain upon the web without subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicarticles (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Safiel (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Credible coverage is protected for this page "Dog Sun (band)" under wikipedia guidelines section: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] Further more this evidence supports inclusion of "Dog Sun (band)" to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicarticles (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Image does not fulfill general notoriety. In my reading Historicarticles is violating WP:NLT, to boot.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Also contains a lot of unreferenced information about living persons. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Completely aside from that the bulk of this article is turgid, barely comprehensible debris, Historicarticles would do well to reread the GNG (we'll ignore his first comment, mercifully), which holds, as most of us know, that reliable sources must discuss the subject in "significant detail." Mere listings of the date and venue of a band's next performance explicitly do not qualify. Ravenswing 07:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for significant coverage of this band but found none. The cited sources, a mention in a news photo caption and an announcement of a free performance in a small music lounge, don't support notability. Fails notability completely. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:18, 12 May 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.