Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowtide


 * 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 no consensus. Could be re-nominated. (non-admin closure)  J 947  00:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Lowtide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which is sourced entirely to primary sources and blogs with no evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band is entitled to have an article just because they exist; real reliable source coverage, supporting a real claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep except discography, which should be re-incoporated into the main article. I've recently added three reviews for their debut album into the band's article. This now satisfies WP:BAND#1 and likewise, WP:NALBUM#1.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the band and their album as there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. The following two are both extensive pieces about the band.
 * The later newspaper also had a substantial review (****1/2) of their selftitled record in the same edition.
 * The age also had a very short review (4/5) on the same day as their article.
 * MX articles also appeared in MX Brisbane and MX Sydney.
 * Merge the discog to the main article, the main article and discog are not too large when combined. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * MX articles also appeared in MX Brisbane and MX Sydney.
 * Merge the discog to the main article, the main article and discog are not too large when combined. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has enough coverage in independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Relies heavily upon primary sources and the sources don't seem to be reliable as per WP:RS. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2017 (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.