Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERA 9 (2nd nomination)

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. Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERA 9

ERA 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable band that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Though it looks like there are a number of references being used, actually looking through them reveals them to be from unreliable (and oftentimes defunct) sources, promotional pieces, trivial mentions, or some combination of the three. Searching for any significant coverage in reliable sources now did not turn up anything. I initially WP:PRODed this, but then found that it had previously been Deleted via an AFD before being recreated, and thus needed to go back to another AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The nominator is correct about the sources currently in the article. The band has gotten some media notice but it is largely in the form of softball interviews that were probably reactions to press releases (e.g. [1]), minor product announcements (e.g. [2]), and a few very short album reviews (e.g. [3]). It's a close call but they simply haven't broken through to the significant and reliable coverage that is needed here. And be suspicious of any WP article that says things like "broke down all stylistic boundaries" and "the honest brutality of modern rock" as if the band wrote such doggerel themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I am leaning weak keep as they have some news coverage.Pershkoviski (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Even if we found and added sources, it's a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2023 (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.