Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los (band)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Los (band)

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

Recreated speedy, A7. There are two references now but I am uncertain if they suffice. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three references, but two of them are reviews of the songs and are not primarily about the band. Only one source is actually about the band, which isn't sufficient under WP:MUSIC.  Powers T 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently seeking the publication dates of a number of offline references. Can deletion not be postponed for now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevagrantsfragrance (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further references have been found relating to the band's members and single releases. Thevagrantsfragrance 13:40, 25 January 2009 (GMT)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete : Fails the general notability guideline by not being covered in multiple reliable sources. Also no evidence to show meets any of the criteria at WP:BAND. --JD554 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: change to keep because of new reference, now meets multiple reliable sources criteria. --JD554 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are now multiple reliable sources, so it satisfies notability requirements. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definately sufficient coverage to justify an article. As well as there now being multiple referenced sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.219.161 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2009 (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.