Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik Turtle


 * 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. Wizardman 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Beatnik Turtle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As nominator I am not expressing an opinion on this AfD. Does this band meet WP:BAND? It does not appear that it does. Miami33139 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not convinced this band meets WP:BAND, either. I don't believe these sources--(tiny blurb focusing mainly on the book), (brief album review in a small alternative news weekly), and (a few-paragraph spotlight as part of a series of features on contest participants)--are quite good enough to satisfy criteron 1. The band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria.  Gongshow  Talk 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul Erik below. Appears to just satisfy criterion #1 of WP:BAND.  Gongshow  Talk 17:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The band received a fair amount of media attention in 2006 for its "Indie Band Survival Guide" and in 2008 when it was released in book form. I've added several references just now. With non-trivial coverage in Billboard and in such newspapers as The News Tribune (that article was also picked up by a newswire service) and the Lincoln Journal Star, there is enough for WP:BAND criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Based on print only references provided by Paul Erik, willing to give benefit of the doubt that these are non-trivial mentions. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on the new references, I feel this satisfies WP:BAND. The fact that there is more than one reference and not all at the same time indicates notability and not just news to me. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per good work by Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2009 (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.