Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyes To The Sky


 * 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. The band does not appear on AllMusic. The cited sources do not establish notability. Most of them look like press releases or non-professional reviews. No prejudice against re-creation with reliable sources that would establish notability. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Eyes To The Sky

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This band is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xedgerx (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2008


 * Speedy keep: The article asserts notability. Nom has also nominated articles relating to this person. The only contribs nom has is for 3 AfDs, this and 2 related articles. – Jerry  teps  02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a basis for speedy. Asserting notability is not the same as satisfying it. Speedy keep is only used for a blatantly incorrect nomination, either on procedural or malicious grounds. Looking over the sources, I notice that they all seem to come from one or two websites, which may or may not qualify as reliable sources, and so I cannot verify if WP:MUSIC has been satisfied. RayAYang (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Yeah, i've done some more research on them I shouldn't of speedy kept them but the nom seems like a WP:SPA. So I pretty much just had a quick glance at article and the article and thought they look fairly notable (as in not not notable). I became suspicous since the nom was very short and wasn't signed so I investigated the user and saw that they were a WP:SPA. – Jerry  teps  08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The nominator's abusive appearance is a matter of concern, and that can be taken up elsewhere, but the task before us is the assessment of the deletion guideline in regard to this article.  The article fairly clearly fails the deletion guideline.  We may need intervention against some local bad blood or poison pen battle, but that's not our concern at AfD.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources to establish notability for this article and have been unable to. Rnb (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (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.