Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miocene (band)

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 no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miocene (band)

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

No sources found which demonstrate meeting WP:NBAND. —swpb^T 12:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND. almost all the sources provided are its own website. The others are unreliable. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have to look beyond the included refs, which is why WP:BEFORE is a thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the refs in the article are of course terrible, but a bit of applied WP:BEFORE turned up Wafflemag bothering to do a retrospective, metal-observer.com/articles_print.php?lid=1&sid=2&id=4925 (which is a bit zineish, but decades-running and multiply-authored ... though being in the spam filter is a bit of a worry), review, review ... and Cellular Memory did have an entry in the UK Top 100 album charts, even if it was one week at #99. (Always look for chart entries.) On that evidence, I will go so far as to predict in confidence further contemporary sources exist. Anyway, keep on balance - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 28 September 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.