Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room 94

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. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Room 94

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

This has been speedy deleted five times and it keeps coming back. I believe at this point a discussion is in order to determine if we should either have this article or delete it and create-protect it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this has been speedy deleted five times I think now the page should stay as the band seem to be growing in popularity and now have more reliable sources to backup the info stated on the page. They have just a single in the Official UK charts and Official iTunes charts, as well playing to 40thousand+ people on tour with Lawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotalemon (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links in the article do not verify that the single charted. The claims about sold out concerts and playing with notable performers are unreferenced. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this band of the sort necessary to show notability. If such coverage exists, bring it forward for discussion here, and/or add it to the article, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The charting criteria for WP:BAND refers to singles within national charts, which in the UK is the UK Singles Chart. The single in question "Chasing the Summer" charts so low at #160 that the band isn't even represented on the official site [1]. I wouldn't consider this enough to satisfy inclusion. The touring criteria relies on in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, usually in some form of review, which this announcement [2] does not seem to meet. Neither does playing one show abroad. Five recreations in the past two years for this six year old band may imply that things aren't going too well for them. Funny ^Pika! 21:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave them the benefit of the doubt, based upon the above, that perhaps they just don't understand what kind of sources are necessary to prove notability. However, the more I look for sources, and the more I research them (for example, venue size), the less notable they appear to be. After five prior speedy deletions (and in light of my opinion that it's bad precedent to keep an article on a non-notable subject only because the subject keeps re-creating it), I agree with create-protect as well. HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More References have been provided to prove notability. There are many wiki pages about artists/bands and other things who have A LOT less references then this page. The single in question "Chasing The Summer" was in actual fact on the Official Chart website as it was #7 on the Indie Single Breakers Chart and #24 on the Indie/Alternative charts. For the user who said 6 years and five wiki deletions means it is going well for them, silly thing to say. Most bands/artists don't "make it" for years - well, unless you're an X Factor artist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotalemon (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. An unsigned band, who have produced one own label album, and manage to sell out when they play in small venues. Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The band are selling out 800 capacity size venues, although unsigned - they still qualify for a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.94.116 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 23 April 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.