Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlecross


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Battlecross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Marginal coverage of a tour in which they were only the opening act is the only media attention they have gotten. WP:TOOSOON Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Detroitsteel (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Still learning how to use Wikipedia but there are a a lot of references to be added. Marginal coverage for the largest heavy metal tour of the summer where they opened is untrue. There were over 600 articles in local and national press about the band during this tour, including a feature in Guitar Player Magazine. Much to be added. Give the user a break and let them finish the article. Fans are also encouraged to contribute. Detroitsteel
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep or AT A MINIMUM redirect  - The band now has a review at Blabbermouth.com listed as a reference in their article. If the verdict is not to keep the article, I recommend at a minimum, redirecting the article to Trespass America, a tour on which the band participated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a review of their album at Allmusic, which is a step towards meeting WP:BAND, so I've included that as a reference in the article. Some of the other sources cited are questionable, however, so I'm not !voting at present until I can carry out a more detailed search. — sparklism  hey! 13:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:25, 27 January 2013 (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.