Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope for the Dying


 * 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. Courcelles 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope for the Dying

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Band that appears to lack WP:NMUSIC. I am One of Many (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Band has two releases on Facedown Records and a third out next month, which would clear one hurdle of WP:MUSIC. Coverage by HM Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout, and Blabbermouth.net would pass another. Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG based on the coverage it has received. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through multiple releases on Facedown Records and independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism hey! 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are also the most prominent progressive metal band in Illinois if I'm not mistaken WP:NMUSIC # 7 Sambarino (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I first nominated this article, it looked like more of a self-promotional article for the band. However, the changes that have been made clearly indicate that it is independently notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Requesting Speedy Close as nominator has withdrawn. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history comments for this AfD, I am no longer sure that the nominator has withdrawn. It's rather confusing. In any case, I still think the proceeding is ready to close. Chubbles (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did decide to keep and it looks like a clear consensus to keep, but I did not withdraw the nomination. An IP withdrew the nomination.  Only I can withdraw the nomination, so I reverted the IP's close, which was improper because IPs should not close discussion and it appeared the IP was acting an an imposter of me.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You voted "keep" in an AfD debate you yourself opened. That's withdrawing a nomination. The IP moved to close the proceedings, which he thought (as I did) were over. Chubbles (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have withdrawn but as I understand it, I then close the discussion. Your request for a speedy close was then appropriate, but then an admin must close it or an experienced user who believe it a non-controversial close.  The only reason I'm not withdrawing it myself is because my opinion was changed by others who made changes in the article that demonstrated its independent notability.  I'm about 100% sure that an admin will come along soon and close it as keep.--I am One of Many (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, requesting a Speedy Close, as I believe the proceedings need tarry no longer. Chubbles (talk) 02:27, 11 March 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.