Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Skychurch


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Electric Skychurch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This band is not notable. Electric Skychurch does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the only sources are All Music Guide and their My Space page, A Google search resulted in nothing more than that. Zacaparum (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google search resulted in plenty for me: . --Michig (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The results of your Google search, Mishig, are simply mentions in the All Music Guide (which includes virtually all released records), or some minor press mentions, obviously the result of a standard publicity campaign that occurs when a record is released.  This does not mean that the band is notable, within the confines of WP:BAND.  It just means they had a publicist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacaparum (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. These demonstrate that the band pass both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zacaparum (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. I am neutral in this discussion. -- Patchy1 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, the subject of this AfD has received multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable sources; that being said none of those mentions IMHO pass significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. Failing this, the lesser guideline of WP:BAND, which it also does not pass, is not as important.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with non-trivial coverage in such varied sources as Billboard, the Sun-Sentinel, Allmusic (a biography and reviews), CMJ New Music Monthly and a full article about the band in Option. I added some of the sources to the article just now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Michig and Paul Erik have demonstrated that this band meets WP:BAND through coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism  hey! 13:58, 18 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.