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. Sr13 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold For Swank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not finding any reason to believe that this band is notable; quick google search doesn't turn up any third-party sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:BAND. Ford MF 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND. Completely original research. Most likely WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Evb's comment. Created by an SPA, so may well be autobio. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the rest. Closenplay 18:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G12 Not only not notable but so many advertising links in the article that I think a speedy is order. A1octopus 17:55, 6 June 2007 (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.