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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming With Dolphins (band)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a band whose strongest claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC is the fact that it was started by a musician who attained notability with a different band he started after leaving this one. The sourcing here is abysmal, to boot -- of the 33 sources here, every last man jack one of them is to blogs, Facebook, Tumblr, Soundcloud, Indiegogo, YouTube, iTunes or Amazon.com, with not even one single solitary shred of reliable source coverage in the entire pile. This is not how a band gets a Wikipedia article -- even if they technically met every criteria in NMUSIC, the article would still have to be reliably sourced to actually get them over NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not poorly sourced, but it does have a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly sourced, because there isn't even one properly reliable source anywhere in the entire article — it's based completely on primary sources and blogs. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality of sourcing is not relevant re. notability. Enough coverage exists in reliable sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those three links are blogs which don't count as reliable sources, and while an album review in a real music magazine (which only Alternative Press is) counts as valid sourcing, it can't carry WP:GNG by itself as an article's only valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither jesusfreakhideout nor crossrhythms are blogs. I've seen them accepted as reliable sources elsewhere although I'm not overly familiar with them myself as I have little interest in this type of music. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC) There's also a review at Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as although the article would still need work, this may be convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 1 March 2016 (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.