This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 April 5. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was KEEP -- I hope I'm going out on a limb with this one -- & against not only consensus, but Beeblebrox's otherwise convincing point that this is actually a re-creation of an article that has been deleted thrice. That said, the group just squeaks over the notability line (per WP:NMUSIC) because of its association with two notable artists -- Craig Owens & Jonny Craig -- on its Kingdoms album. Had the article been properly wikified, their association would have been obvious. (And why doesn't anyone ever rely on print publications like Rolling Stone or NME to prove notability instead of only websites? That would make deciding notability on unfamiliar genres like "post-hardcore" much easier.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient secondary source coverage. Sources provided are either primary or unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are sufficient in the context, stated as sources of "user ratings". Sources could be nothing but primary in the context. Other primary sources include nterviews with the band; these too are sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden234 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I understand. The information and references have been replaced by reliable information from a professional music review.
I've added more references. Everything is now strongly referenced. I don't understand why this article would not be kept. They're a big band, about to release their second album and they have a huge following. And this article should definitely not be salted because of the record label trying to force a previous article about the band onto wikipedia when they were far less well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden12345 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]