Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mighty Lumberhorn

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Lumberhorn[edit]

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

I considered speedying again as A7 like Hello32020 in November 2006 but considering its age and the amount of edits since then, a full nomination may be best and my searches simply found nothing better than some of the listed links (found them at News and browser, the few that there are). There's simply nothing to suggest improvement for this seemingly now non-existent band and there's nothing to suggest it was better known even locally (Mighty Lumberhorn would also have to be deleted). I'm also notifying Anne Delong and author Roboticus. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added three references, but that was all I could find aside from a couple of upcoming event listings and a CD release announcement which mentioned them. This is light coverage even for a local band.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Not enough in-depth coverage on the search engines to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, despite Anne Delong's nice effort at saving. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 27 October 2015 (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.