Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cartoon


 * 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 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Blue Cartoon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No claim nor assertion of notability via reliable sources to meet music notability guidelines or general notability. Brief record reviews are not sufficient CutOffTies (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. this is in-depth, and more may be available through Highbeam Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As far as WP:GNG goes, there seems to be a few independent sources, but I don't think they qualify as "significant;" additionally, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they meet WP:BAND, with the possible exception of the first criterion, should any of these sources be deemed "non-trivial."  EW  i kist Talk 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, multiple reviews and an in-depth article about the band. Enough for me for a Keep vote. Cavarrone (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple reviews from reliable sources? I don't see them. Several non-notable bands have lots of reviews in self published sources such as this  --CutOffTies (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "LeicesterBangs" website is surely not reliable. Austin Chronicle and Amplifier Magazine (despite its review is now a dead link, but I want assume it was also published in its printed issue), in my view, yes.Cavarrone (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Cavarrone (and the review from The Day found by Crisco); just about meets WP:BAND 1, though the article itself needs to do a better job of asserting their notability but they do seem to have had it. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 12:46, 14 May 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.