Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea for julie


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea for Julie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability asserted, but not to the level required by WP:MUSIC WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial coverage, no assertion to notability, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * JamesBurns has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is all I could find in two minutes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment From seeing their name around town, my sense is that they probably meet the notability criterion, but I'm not sure how to best find the sources to support that gut feeling. Hope somebody can provide some good citations. -Pete (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added a couple of sources just now. The band received a nomination for Album of the Year at the Portland Music Awards. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete scant coverage. They appear to have no more than one non charting release to their name. Iam (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Indef-blocked sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. It would be good to see the article saved but there are just insufficient WP:RS to justify an article. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've been going through a list of links that band member Michael sent me, and gradually adding to the article. The Willamette Week's in-depth review of the band's 2nd album, combined with the Mercury's review that was already cited, appears to satisfy the first criterion of WP:MUSIC. I believe there is more to support a claim of notability, which I'm working on; just trying to sort out which of the links he sent me would qualify as WP:RS. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per substantial coverage in additional sources found.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (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.