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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Bullet[edit]

Pink Bullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No real claim to notability. One EP release only and no evidence that it on an important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources past a small local piece announcing a gig. Prod removed saying "Removed prod. Band has released an album under a notable label. There may be another. Prod duration is less than edit interval, so likely to be missed by contributors. Please take this to AfD." I can't see where notable label comes from. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning to delete). I removed the prod. It's hard to find reliable sources on this band. I found one local online magazine in Brisbane, Australia (the band's home) profiling the band. My search revealed that the band almost meets WP:BAND criterion #5 for inclusion, having published one EP and a single through a long-established independent label (Red Eye Records), but not two albums, as far as I can tell.[1] Red Eye isn't mentioned in the article, but that omission is grounds for improvement rather than deletion. If they released another album this year (as the article implies), they'd just squeak by the criteria for inclusion. That reasoning, and the fact that the article has had many editors but the prod duration is less than the article's historical editing interval, convinced me that the prod should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link is to the red eye record store, not the label. seperate businesses. the pink01 you see for that ep suggests it is a self released ep. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then I say delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (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.