Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peat Moss (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   delete. L Faraone  01:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Peat Moss (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The creator of this page is obviously trying to promote his old gararge band. Koala15 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 8.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I originally placed a PROD on the article to give it a chance. Because of the unexplained PROD removal, I'm inclined to !vote delete. As stated earlier, the article did not appear to meet WP:BAND and a WP:BEFORE search did not reveal any obvious WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw talk 06:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - A non-notable band with one notable musician, although Allmusic did review the album, it's not what you'd call lengthy. Fails GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in RS, and there is no evidence of the band passing any part of WP:BAND. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — Allmusic is pretty much bottom of the barrel as far as reliable sourcing and any indication of actual notability. Even considering that source, though, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are out of reach because of the paucity of solid coverage by squarely reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 16 May 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.