Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7eventh Time Down


 * 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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

7eventh Time Down

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Another editor thinks that play on Air 1 is an assertion of notability. But no evidence of notability is offered. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass a single one of the 12 parts of WP:BAND for prove notability. No reliable sources available.  Only sources I could find were Facebook, Myspace, a few non-notable forums, and a few websites listing their past and/or upcoming shows. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)\
 * I'm glad that you found these sources, but I think everything is pushing it. The Houston Chronicle piece is from their blog. Generally, it seems to be the case that blogs aren't often considered reliable. Maybe it is, because its the Chronicle. Also, I'm not too sure by what is meant by WP:BAND #2, but I have never heard of those two categories for Billboard.  Obviously they exist, but I don't know if that really makes them notable. Also WP:BAND #1 includes multiple reliable sources except: "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". I could be absolutely wrong, but I do not agree that Q&A interviews are enough to warrant notability. If there was some real juice, why isn't there just an article or story written about them.  You've basically listed an obscure Billboard chart and some Q&As. I still say delete. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  00:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to see if the article can be improved, but I don't see any secondary sources for it, so unless some turn up, I don't think there is demonstrated notability of the band. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. I can't find any secondary sources. Zach Vega (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. No. 2, This is the source. I can provide additional ones if needed!HotHat (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No.1, Here is source 2, Episode 214 if you want to listen.
 * Criterion #1 of WP:BAND requires multiple reliable sources. A story somewhere else besides New Release Tuesday would help the cause. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another interview source.HotHat (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is secondary chart source.HotHat (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although they are listed at Allmusic, no biography has been written about them there. I'm not sure that makes them non-notable, but it's a point of data. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just found a Houston Chronicle article interview about them on the "Stay Close Tour" with Fireflight, which source is sufficient to prove No. 4, so now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are notable.HotHat (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some secondary sources turned up. :) The coverage is coming in in a slow trickle, and the participation in the tour is enough for me to say that yes, they're notable per WP:BAND. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable after the sources appeared. Zach Vega (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep RHaworth, you misunderstood. The Air 1 source, I was told, might save the article from CSD if I found it (which I didn't), this article with the current sources is notable, and this was a bad faith nomination from the beginning. Can we WP:SK this AFD, please?Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that we're having this discussion means that it saved the article from speedy deletion. Further, I noted that the article being sent to AfD was a likely outcome if reliable sources weren't provided—and there weren't any in the article when it was nominated. A hasty AfD nomination is not bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.