Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telekinesis!


 * 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) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Telekinesis!

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

Does not meet WP:BAND  Chzz  ►  02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would tend to agree with the nom. Un  sch  ool  02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. Fails to pass WP:BAND. Renaissancee (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Is this AfD about this album or about the band which made it, or both?  The article seems to be about an album but the nom mentions it not passing a guideline for bands. Rnb (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess albums are covered under WP:BAND, which I hadn't realized. Rnb (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment — The album has been reviewed by numerous reliable sources, which lends to the album's (and artist's) notability. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Twasnow. The band seems borderline notable, so their album can be either kept or merged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Should this really be up for debate? The band passes the criteria for notability under WP:BAND, and therefore so does this album. Besides, this album has national reviews across the country (ie Billboard Magazine, All Music Guide, Pitchfork Media, two articles in Spin Magazine here and here, Drowned In Sound, The Austin Chronicle, Nashville Scene, Nylon Magazine, two articles in PreFix Magazine here and here, and also Stereogum. (Fulmerg (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Forgot to add that yesterday Rolling Stone named Telekinesis as a "Breaking" band here (Fulmerg (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep. Not all of the above references are useful, but I think enough are to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as it stands makes credible claims of notability, and the additional material seals the deal. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 15 May 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.