Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sluts of Trust

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 no consensus. Michig makes a plausable argument for inclusion but unfortunately one !vote is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluts of Trust[edit]

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

Marginal notability at most--a Peel session, playing South by Southwest--and unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They recorded a Peel session in 2004 and had two tracks voted into the end of year Festive 50 chart.[1]. Their album received several reviews.PopMatters, Dusted, Ink19 Further coverage in the tripwire, Billboard, SPIN, Morning Call, Sunday Mail, Glasgow Herald. See also the Press page on their website which samples other coverage, much of which is not available online. I also searched the News UK archive which gives far more comprehensive UK news results than Google News. Coverage includes "TODAY EDINBURGH TOMORROW THE WORLD ; Sluts of Trust duo launch Olum's bid to be Europe's hip club" (Daily Record, substantial article about the band), "Singles and Albums: Album of the week" (Daily Record, brief album review), "POP: SINGLE OF THE WEEK" (The Independent, review of "Leave You Wanting More" which they awarded Single of the Week), "OMM: and the rest: new releases" (The Observer, brief album review), "Brave chart" (The Sun, profiles of several Scottish bands, including Sluts of Trust), "SLUTS OF TRUST We Are All Sluts of Trust" (The Times, more substantial album review), "Leer pressure pays off" (The Scotsman, substantial feature), "Proud to be so loud; Scots duo A hit at the hut" (Evening Times (Glasgow), substantial feature). Notability is clear.--Michig (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've started tidying up the article and adding sources. I'm probably only about 20% through this but it should be obvious to even the most rabid deletionist that notability is clear.--Michig (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Pretty much there now. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2010 (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.