Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powder (American 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Powder (American band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a band, offering no strong or properly sourced evidence that they pass WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim here is that they and their music exist, with no indication whatsoever that they achieved anything encyclopedic with it, and the only footnotes are a fan club website and a discogs.com entry, with no evidence of any journalistic coverage about them in any real media shown at all. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed -- notability requires quantifiable achievements, and it requires real coverage in real media to support them. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep/merge to Phil X. There's a reasonably substantial bio at Allmusic  and an album review, as well as a live review from LA Weekly  and a brief piece that mentions them writing for another band . There isn't a lot of content here that isn't already in the Phil X article - whether there's sufficient scope for expansion or whether this is best covered in the Phil X article is the real question here. Nominator really needs to take note of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. --Michig (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability . Fails WP:NMUSIC Samat lib (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - appreciate Michig's comments, but the title is not what I'd consider an appropriate redirect as it has a disambiguation term in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- The problem here is the digital decay of a lot of music media coverage from the '90s; all evidence suggests that coverage existed, the problem is getting a hold of it now. In addition to the above, the band was written up in Kerrang!'s print magazine, via winning the 1999 readers' poll (unfortunately I don't know how to get a hold of the back issue during COVID, but the band's posted a screenshot of the page), and the bio suggests that Kerrang also reviewed either the album or the show (see previous; the quote isn't in that writeup), which would pass WP:BAND criterion 1. (Scuzz would also count if someone were to dig the segment up). Their song being a WNBA/ESPN sync theme (WP:BAND criterion 10) and their Download Festival spot may also count if the external coverage can be dug up. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gnomingstuff. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (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.