Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millencolin


 * 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. Yes I know I'm involved but fuck it, this should not have been nominated, they have charted all over the world, they have been certified gold, they have had coverage of their many international tours, they have multiple albums on an "important" label, they have a LOT of coverage from independent reliable sources. No need to waste any more time on this.. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Millencolin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a long article with lots of blue links, but the sourcing for this band is atrocious. There is not one single source cited which meets the dual test of being both reliable and independent. Most material is sourced from the band's own site, a small amount from AMG, and we even have a merch sales site in there(!). They are signed to indie labels, which means precisely zip, as signing marginal bands is pretty much the textbook definition of what makes an indie label.

WP:BEFORE did not throw up anything useful. It does look as if they recorded one song that was used by a footie team, but that has not resulted in any substantive sources about the band, and notability is not inherited (even if simply being used by a football team did confer notability, which it does not). Guy (Help!) 11:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Did you really try WP:BEFORE? I typed their name plus the word "band" into Google and hit the news button and found, ,  and  in seconds. Not to mention they easily pass WP:BAND via point 5 - "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Their first five albums were released on Epitaph Records.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do love the way subject guidelines are used to exempt articles from the requirement for coverage in sources that would allow us to write an article compliant with core policy. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do love the way you seem to be unaware, or maybe completely ignorant of WP:RS that easily meet WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Lugnuts. a simple Google search is sufficient to find plenty of great sources if that is an issue. has released several albums on noted record labels.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that "noted". That appears to be dependent on the notability of bands every bit as marginal as this one... Guy (Help!) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a marginal band.BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Snow. VERY notable band. Charted. Gold record. So much coverage. Etc. Clear and obvious keep. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2016 (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.