Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldenboy


 * 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) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  00:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Goldenboy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This band is not notable. Goldenboy does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Perhaps they should noted in a sentence on the page of Elliot Smith, or perhaps Matt Sharp of Weezer, but, on their own, they do not meet the standard. WP:INHERITED. Zacaparum (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zacaparum (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Three albums on Eenie Meenie Records passes WP:MUSIC, and the external links section includes three or four serviceable third-party references. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1; there are multiple reliable sources cited in the article which contain a sufficient amount of coverage to warrant an individual article.  Gong   show  07:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily enough coverage to be considered notable. In addition to those already in the article (which are already sufficient), there are The Aquarian Weekly, Oakland Tribune, Boise Weekly, ABC, Austin American-Statesman. --Michig (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 'external links' section alone contains enough coverage to meet WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 10:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say it satisfies criteria #1. Even though the coverage seems borderline routine, the fact that the sources are from a geographically wide area suggestions attention beyond local coverage. Mkdw talk 21:38, 26 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.