Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands (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 speedy keep. Articles too dissimilar to be bundled. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Andyeshegovich (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason of not meeting WP:BAND criteria:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Subjects are much too varied to be mass bundled together. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I came here from seeing Heck in the Bands and musicians list, and they easily have sufficient coverage. Bundling these unrealted bands up is nonsensical and I'm not convinced sufficient effort has been put in to ensuring the nominations are realistic. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Let me elaborate. All of these articles were written by the same user, are very vague, and follow a nearly identical scheme. All of the bands are small bands just starting out - local, independent or unsigned, haven't had any radio play, no awards received, no chart performance, very little or no media coverage, and their fanbase consists only of a couple thousand "likes" on Facebook. Surely, the articles have references, but have you taken a look at them? Those are either very small, local news portals or self-published articles. In a word, unreliable. My bedroom djent project got fairly the same attention from websites like those back in 2013 - doesn't mean I can have a Wikipedia article about it. They are very much related and I believe my nominations are realistic, given the bands don't fulfil any of the WP:BAND criteria and are thus not notable (with a possible but still unlikely exception for HECK). Andyeshegovich (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Heck, that simply isn't true. They have received coverage from The Independent, Up Set, Rock Sound, and DIY among others. This is the only one I've looked at in detail and doesn't inspire confidence that the others have been properly evaluated. They need to be discussed individually. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All of these articles were written by the same user, are very vague, and follow a nearly identical scheme." Yes they are very poor articles, consider them a start. Some at a quick look should be deleted. Michig shows that at least one should not. The important thing here is not so much the original creator, it's the subjects themselves. Bands from multiple countries in multiple genres, signed (Sony Music Entertainment) and unsigned. they are more than different enough that they should be considered separately. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baptists have two albums thru Southern Lord Records satisfying WP:MUSIC#5. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck the duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the argument that these bands are too dissimilar to be bundled. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Improper bundled nomination of unrelated topics, should have been speedy kept/closed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:57, 4 July 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.