Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movies (band)


 * 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 delete. While Michig's links establish that the band existed, no evidence is provided of decent coverage per GNG or notability otherwise via BAND. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Movies (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. The claims to notability aren't backed up by the sources. Seems promotional, also. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. As well as the Allmusic review cited in the article, I also found, , , . Not totally convincing for an article but given the difficulty of searching for the band name not bad, and I suspect that there is more coverage out there. I'm not sure what the nominator thinks this article is promoting - I don't imagine anyone is going to go and buy records from a long-dead band simply because this article exists. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately delete as although there are a few sources, my searches found nothing else and it's not easy to search considering there's not much information. This has stayed here quietly since April 2008 and, with the new improvement, I would've almost said to draft/userfy, but unless someone wants it, that's a not a good option. Boleyn has had very good noms so I think the "promoting" is due to the unreferenced and extended information and someone may consider the initial creation as a "promotion". SwisterTwister   talk  05:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not convinced the references provided show notability. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (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.