Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Tongue


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Tongue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band with no charting releases and no notable members. Also the only two sources on the page fail the Wikipedia policty for sources. I could not find any sources to why they should be kept on here, not that I dislike the band, I love their music. Just saying I don't think they qualify under notability. Second Skin (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 11:13 pm, Today (UTC−4)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No indication this is a notable group, and can't find any singificant coverage, only routine database entries. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ""Save"" This is a notable group, they have releases on iTunes as well as an upcoming album through a label. Edits rquired. Information in bio is hearsay, and sourceless. Rewrite of bio recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B001:A777:0:39:9FA1:7C01 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We can draft & userfy this to your userspace if you wish but until there's better third-party coverage, there's not much to help the article. SwisterTwister   talk  18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from some local coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  18:06, 26 August 2015 (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.