Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic Breed


 * 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Synthetic Breed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially non-notable band tagged as such since 2008. I was able to locate one single piece of potential RS here, though it's from a local Melbourne weekly. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, Most references areto bands own web site. Additionally all references are broken, bands domain name has expried. Teraplane (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak delete Delete  I could not find anything to indicate notability.  Aoziwe (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak delete as per further non trivial references being found. Aoziwe (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep. If you look really hard there are actually plenty of non trivial sources.  Not sure why they did not come up more readily in the first place.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BAND. Refs now support claim to headlining their own Australian tour, also supporting an international visitor, and releasing at least two studio albums. They are the subject of multiple, non-trivial articles by reliable independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks shaidar cuebiyar. You have got me up to a weak delete.  Can you please advise which specific WP:BAND points you are relying on.  I am not sure that I can properly match your new references to relevant criteria in NBAND.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This source and the one I provided in the nom may amount to WP:BAND #1. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BAND#1 is met by current refs [2], [6], [8], [9] and [14]. #4 with [9]. #5 with refs [5], [6], [8] and [14]. Generally, an ensemble "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Hence, I think they qualify for WP:BAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is also     ... Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: the first of these is similar (same?) as ref [6] with same author.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I've added the one IRS I could find doing a ProQuest database search of all Aust and NZ newspapers, which helps, but it's hardly the keystone of a solid notable page. Cabrils (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as has been improved with the addition of extra reliable sources, weak keep because i'm not familiar with all of the refs except the newspaper ones, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2020 (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.