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. Courcelles 10:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remergence[edit]

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

Band article that of questionable notability (as judged by WP:BAND), no cited facts. References consist of their own site(main presence and blog), a MySpace page, their page at the label's site and multiple "music index site" pages with user contributed content. In short no independent, reliable, and verifiable sources on this page to support it's inclusion Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND, and WP:GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:BAND. You see, Ten Pound Hammer, some people do care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find anything beyond the usual database, primary and blog sources for this subject, never seems to have charted, seems to fail both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Яehevkor ✉ 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my A7 and prod. No sources. And "multiple albums" is not, per se, an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:BAND and I hereby invoke the snowball. ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think putting the Frozen Ice Sphere away for a while would be a sensible option. The nomination's existed for a little bit over 3 hours (as of this writing) and I think going through the full motions (with no foolery) would be a good thing so we can point at G4 to nuke the article should it come back Zombified. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero coverage, no hits, the label they're on has mostly only released records by this band. Article appears to have been written by the band.--Michig (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lot to be found on the web about this band, but it is all non-independent or not in reliable sources. I suspect that someone has made a lot of effort to raise the profile of this band, but I cannot find a single mention in a newspaper, for example. Maybe this: http://www.boostindependentmusic.com/artist/Remergence, but I think it is not independent of the band. Some independent reviews, even from local newspapers, would be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate any coverage to pass either WP:BAND or even WP:GNG. There are no claims of notability in the article either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Mt king ^(edits) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe I'm saying this but "per nom". I don't think Hammer should have edit warred over the CSD tag but he was right about one thing at ANI. If it weren't for that thread there would be a good chance I would be relisting this twice and closing it "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD will not be Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion because the consensus here is already clear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Aticle fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that an IP address objected to the PROD, the fact that this article was already declined a A7 exit, was the subject of an ANI thread, and has only been open at AfD for a little over 1 day that SNOW is inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, best do this one "by the book". Яehevkor ✉ 22:36, 2 August 2011 (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.