Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marmalade Souls

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marmalade Souls[edit]

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

Currently sourced completely with primary and non-reliable sourcing, with the lone exception being the AllMusic reference. However, searches turned up virtually no-indepth coverage of this band. Books turned up a lot of hits, but they were all of the listing kind. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...with the lone exception being the AllMusic reference..."?? You don't consider IMDB reliable and non-primary? Gagitsel (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only I, but Wikipedia does not consider imdb reliable. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, even though they are the stars of the documentary På Helig Mark (On Holy Ground), people are considering deletion of this article? Strange.Gagitsel (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary in question being a twenty minute short that premiered on Umeå International Film Festival last year, has had no other distribution and has gathered a few hundred views on Youtube? Asking to make sure I'm not missing anything. /Julle (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, sadly. Wikipedia needs a slew of other sources first to work. It's how the site works. If not, all our attempts to make it reliable fails. /Julle (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on verifiability grounds. There seems to be next to nothing written about the band – almost no reliable sources not connected to the bad used in the article, as noted, and I can't find anything about the band when looking for further reliable sources online either. /Julle (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of notability from RS, independent sources. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (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.