Talk:Cat's Eyes

GNG/NBAND
If having two independently notable members wasn't enough, this easily passes both of these guidelines on the coverage that exists, e.g. etc. etc. So please explain how this fails either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND and why using proposed deletion is remotely appropriate here. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian:, , , , , ,
 * Pitchfork:, , , ,
 * NME:, , ,
 * Clash, , ,
 * GQ:
 * The Skinny:
 * Exclaim!:
 * Louder Than War:
 * FACT:
 * UNCUT:
 * Gigwise:
 * Um none of those sources were present in the article, and PROD was more than appropriate because, at the time, there was no real assertion of notability. GiantSnowman 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both members' articles linked, two albums on major labels, so plenty of indication that the subject is notable. A Google search would have made it obvious. The prod of the album article, which already had at least 5 good sources on the basis that it was "non-notable fancruft" that "Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG" is simply ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CatsEyes CE Shot2 134 F.tif