Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Postmarks


 * 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) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Postmarks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this article WP:PROD, but someone challenged it. I then looked for the better and multiple references referred to in their reasoning for contesting the PROD, but can't find sufficient breadth/depth for them to pass WP:NMG or WP:GNG. Aside from creating three albums - the first of which apparently is "well reviewed" but is one of the barest articles around, and which also lacks refs - I can't presently how they get close to WP:NMG. Rgds Trident13 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strange that you didn't find coverage. The first page of Google results when I searched led to all these:, , , , , , , , , , , . I didn't feel the need to venture onto the second page of results as notability is already clear. --Michig (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I dug a bit deeper and also found:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . A more through search would likely find more. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ...and , , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep--Upon doing a search in music rags as well as a google search it seems that there is plenty to support this article being saved. I do agree the article is not the prettiest page on wikipedia, but I think we should tag it for what needs to be done and allow it to grow. I do find this group to be notable.--Canyouhearmenow 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Even ignoring the sources above, the RSs cited in the article were probably enough for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep But the article needs to be edited. There are sufficient WP:RS results from Google searches to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:SNOW. Sources are abundant online as shown above; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk  17:07, 4 July 2014 (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.