Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great American Beast


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Great American Beast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod for a band for which I could not find any RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Searching for info on the band I only found a few references, one isn't even about the band but an independent wrestler:, the other an interview with the head of the band's former record label where they are mentioned for a moment: . I would says none of this shows how they meet WP:BAND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I deprodded this based on the following sources which I beleive demonstrate notability:, , , , ~Kvng (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * responding to those sources in order, from the ridiculous to the OK (none strong)
 * a forum on german dating site? i can only say wtf to you bringing that,
 * lambgoat seems marginal-y
 * testwood is an SPS but the owner seems expert
 * noisecreep seems like an independent site about hardcore, i guess
 * exclaim does seem pretty good, although let's be clear, it is canada and Toronto at that.
 * these sources are not ragingly strong at all. my !vote has not changed, but it could if someone generates good content from decent sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment I can't tell if the several references Kvng cites are important or significant sources. They may all be glorified music blogs with little weight or influence. But I don't know for sure. If they do "save" this page they need to be incorporated with the article. Until that happens I am voting delete but will change with more convincing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am saying this because the Exclaim! review, only.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Scrapes by WP:MUSIC with two releases on Trustkill Records and the sourcing given above (Exclaim is international coverage, and I agree that the case would be weaker without it). Chubbles (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the improved sources of Exclaim and Noisecreep, reliable sources enable WP:GNG to be just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough reliable sources have been provided to just pass WP:BAND. The article gives enough information about the band's successes to prove it's notability. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether or not this band satisfies WP:BAND is borderline; whether it meets the source guidelines is a matter of personal judgment, though it flat out fails all other notability criteria (no major albums, semi-notable record label, no awards, etc.). In light of this, deletion seems most appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (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.