Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Child (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Child (band)[edit]

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

Locally notable band, but does not meet notability WP:BAND Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Article mostly fails WP:BAND. ///EuroCarGT 03:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this coverage - I'd say they may have got beyond 'locally notable': [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources, still don't meet WP:BAND, but maybe we can get 'em in under the WP:GNG. did you add the sourcing to the article? If not, I will if we keep the thing. Thanks again for finding what I missed! Dloh cierekim 14:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these just reviews from areas where they toured? If so, they aren't really helping to raise coverage to a significant level. Await further commentary. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 of WP:BAND is essentially a restatement of WP:GNG, so if the subject meets the latter it will also meet the former. They may be reviews from areas where they toured, but I don't see why that would be an issue. It's marginal, I think, whether there's enough there, but bearing in mind that a Google search probably won't find all coverage that exists, I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added this additional source I found. Combined with the sources Michig noted, it's possibly enough to squeak by WP:BAND criterion #1, and, like Michig, I would err on the side of keeping this one. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 15 September 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.