Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Remains


 * 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. –MuZemike 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Still Remains

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to fail WP:BAND guidelines. I can find some reviews on Google News but nothing that seems to satisfy the requirement for being "non-trivial" in the BAND criteria. The article states "minor UK chart success" but is not clear about what this means or can provide non-trivial sources. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Band clearly meets WP:BAND. Two albums for a more important indie label. See List of Roadrunner Records artists for a list of other artists on the label. Coverage in SPIN. [ Two albums charted in Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart reaching no. 6 and no. 43 positions]. See also,, and Still Remains at Roadrunner Records--Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes point 5 of WP:MUSIC - 2 records released on Roadrunner.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per point 5, but please get some inline citations in this article. The lack of any third-party reviews or coverage is worrisome. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs added.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * References to the roadrunnerrecords.com are not third party. See PSTS. Fæ (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * primary sources are reliable when speaking about themselves. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I'm not suggesting they are removed but self-published sources do not demonstrate a subject is notable (the point of the nomination here) no matter how many times they claim to be on their own website. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable via album releases and coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. They also had a top-100 album in the UK .--Michig (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am against the deletion of this page for multiple reasons.

1.) Still Remains was signed to Roadrunner Records, one of the largest U.S. hard rock/heavy metal record labels. Many smaller bands that were/are signed to much smaller indie labels avoid deletion somehow, so why delete Still Remains?

2.) Although this band did not sell millions, they headlined numerous national tours and were brought on tours with many larger acts such as Bullet For My Valentine, Shadows Fall, Aiden, and Hawthorne Heights.

3.) This band did in fact have a single ("Dancing With The Enemy") that landed on the charts.

4.) Songs by Still Remains made their way onto significant compilation albums and members of Still Remains were involved in musical projects with prominent hard rock/heavy metal musicians such Slipknot, Fear Factory, Machine Head, and Trivium.

If deletion of non-notable bands is something that is trying to be done, I feel that the smallest, least notable bands be proposed for deletion well before acts like Still Remains.

Hsxeric (talk) 09:53, 20 June 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.