Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs From The Howling Sea


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Songs From The Howling Sea

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No evidence of notability. Only one real reference could be found (the one already in the article). Google shows some sites by the project, but no coverage from reliable third party sources. Netalarm talk 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's covered by the Evening Standard and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, This is the Evening Standard. Thought it was "This is London". That's the only source I could find, and it sounds like one of those "local people doing stuff updates", any others? Netalarm talk 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "This is London" is the Evening Standard's web brand. That's why it has a large masthead reading "London Evening Standard" on their pages. Did you follow the link, or just AfD it without? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just scrolled down on the page and read it, since there was a large commercial next to it. Commercials everywhere --> ignore everything and just read the article. Regarding the notability of the subject, are there more sources? I'm having a hard time finding any. That Evening Standard one feels kind of local news though. Netalarm talk 02:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Sounds cute, but nevertheless a web-based project by a non-notable unsigned musician.  The Evening Standard coverage is OK, but any coverage I can find seems to be pickup of press releases about the project, and WP does say "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity ..."  I don't think the citations offered establish this.  Ka renjc 13:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's obviously a risk, as most of the coverage I've found so far is obviously instigated by the singer's own press releases (and our Lady Gaga coverage presumably isn't...). I did like this comment from the Londonist though, "The Londonist inbox swells to Jupiter-like proportions each day with inane requests for coverage. Much of it is guff of the most guffsome guffishness. And then, every once in a while, we get beautiful non-guff like this:" Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. The couple of sources provided do not give substantial coverage, and we do seem to have write-ups of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Press puffery, no actual notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as interesting but not notable. There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor articles in the Evening Standard and Londonist are a start, but for from enough to be considered significant third-party coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (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.