Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tumblers


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tumblers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Band lacking notability. Airplay is not national rotation. Releases are not on an important label. Notability is not inherited from bands they have supported. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing falls short. 1 is a Uni publication, 2 is by them, Space Ship News (3,5,7) is a promotional organisation, 4 is a a record store link where Gordon recorded his ep, 6 is a community radio station playlist that shows a single play (not rotation as claimed). I found nothing better. See also Articles for deletion/Tim Gordon (musician). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A closely related nomination to the above and my rationale is the same. There is adequate sourcing showing to provide verifiability for a popular culture topic. We are and should be hard-ass on the inclusion or removal of serious encyclopedic matters. Wikipedia's utility as a compendium of popular culture is based upon its vastness and it makes no sense to me to start taking chainsaws to the forest. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources do you think provide adequate sourcing for notability? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * strong delete does not meet WP:BAND anyway. None of the albums produced are charted. No in-depth coverage in major press. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:BAND or general notability. Available sources are either self-published, primary, or capsule reviews. None of these rise to the level of notability guidelines. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2012 (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.