Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Swim (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. Note the nominator's withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to Swim (band)[edit]

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

At first glance this article appears to be well written and seems legit, however a Google search of this band does not find many results, mainly Myspace, Facebook, Twitter etc. There is not much media coverage of this band, not even a section at Allmusic.com. The editors of the article have not made much attempt to cite information. There is merely one citation which is from independent Edinburgh magazine The List. The band have been together since 2000 yet have very little discography to their name, certainly nothing that has charted anyway. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. It is best to get opinions from other users just to be safe. Maybe I've missed something.Bluidsports (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15. Snotbot t • c » 02:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's some that you missed: The Scotsman: [1], [2], [3], The Skinny: [4], [5], The List: [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I say media coverage, I am generally referring to mainstream exposure of the band. Which is why I pointed out the absence of an entry at Allmusic.com. Of course there are articles on smaller media organisations i.e The Skinny, The List and The Scotsman's sister blog site Radar; there is nothing to be found in 'first order' media, The Guardian, The Times, NME etc. Although one can forgive them in today's music industry for not having any charted songs, they have also strikingly never had an album chart anywhere. Ironically, the editors of the article have unwittingly shot themselves in the foot for including a discography table with vacant and likely non-existent chart stats; just n/a across the board.Bluidsports (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG through independent coverage in reliable sources, as shown by Michig. — sparklism ^hey! 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable coverage, per Michig. Its not relevant (and not surprising) that a Glasgow band isn't covered in the London newspapers.--Vclaw (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the original nominator I am happy to concede and let this article stay. Since making this nomination, I have found some considerably more shocking band articles that deserve my deletion time. The contributors to the article have not cited it very well but Michig has found plenty of legit press coverage. Bluidsports (talk) 15:06, 18 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.