Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abscess (band)
Appearance
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abscess (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band, not seeing unique contributions they made, awards, chart toppers, etc. Also only sourced to self-refs. MBisanz talk 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. The band has released several albums. I don't know whether the labels that released the albums are considered notable, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough Alan - talk 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With Eastmain's additions, this group meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Also, with at least two releases on Relapse Records, this satisfies criterion 5. Gongshow Talk 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Added Allmusic bio reference, helping to meet criterion 1 of WP:BAND.Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This band has been around for a long time. I recognized the name scanning the AfD site and thought it was weird this discussion would be happening. It would be nice if there was a little more content, but notability is not an issues. I'm sure there are more references out there, but the current references establish sufficient notability criteria. noodle 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
- 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.