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. To be clear, Wikipedia policy is that it is for those seeking to add, restore, or retain material to provide citations and sources for it. In the event that anyone is desirous of merging any of the content into one of the other articles mentioned, please contact me and I will restore as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Two reviews [1] [2] from non-WP:RSes might make their albums notable, but no feature articles on the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references still do not establish notability for this band, no significant improvment since this was deleted after AFD previously RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, it's not up to the article's editors to show the subject's notability, it's ours to discover if the subject is or isn't notable. With a name like "Bells" that's obviously a bit more difficult. However, I couldn't find anything to support the band's notability (or I would have added it to the article and removed the notability tag there since January). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - HUH? It is the one who writes who has to give proof of what he writes. When the author thinks a band is notable, he/she has to provide evidence to prove the notability. The Banner talk 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please dont imply that you are clarifying Wikipedia policy or even practice. What you note here just doesn't match up with how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:PROVEIT particularly the section which reads The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:PROVEIT is about how to resolve a challenge to material, a "challenge" being more like "I don't think this is correct, so show me a citation", instead of merely "this is currently unsourced." PROVEIT does not give us license to delete an article (or part thereof) purely based on whether it is currently unreferenced without regard to whether it is verifiable; that interpretation would completely ignore the "challenged or likely to be challenged" qualifier. WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP should together make that clear, and we must read PROVEIT in conjunction with those other policies. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to August Burns Red and/or This or the Apocalypse. There's not much more here than who the band members are and the fact that they released an album last year, but while an article might not be justified, I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned in the articles on the bands that the members were previously in. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the band self-released its CD, That's not a good sign for notability. Is there any good evidence that they have toured nationally? Bearian (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm afraid that I can't find anything the band meets any of the factors for WP:BAND. The four reviews (Shut Your F#$@!*ing Face and Listen, MVRemix reviews, The Ravel, and Chameleon Club) are from non-reliable sources, and not from the list of "approved" sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Sources. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 16 July 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.