Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Temple


 * 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 per User:pburka's rationale.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Twin Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable band that fails to meet WP:BAND and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom,  and New York. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

They are still an indie band, but they are growing. They have released two albums and sevens singles. They have been mentioned in magazines such as Revolver and LA Times. Alex Jones and Infowars also did an entire segment about them. They are gaining quite the following around the world, and they are also forming their own musical style.

I have no affiliation with the band, with the soul exception of having heard and read about them recently and was surprised that there was no entry about them on Wikipedia.

They also have over a million listeners on Spotify.

I do believe they live up to Wikipedia’s requirements for being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BAND, and even some of the claims of notability made in the article aren't supported by linked sources (article says Alex Jones devoted an entire episode, but one link says it was a segment, and another just says they got his attention. -fuzzy510 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

IMHO they at least qualify for point #7: “Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.”

They have invented their own genre, which makes them unique and culturally interesting. At least interesting enough for being picked up by LA Times, Revolver Magazine, and Metalhammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like they pass WP:GNG, e.g. Metal Hammer, Grimy Goods, Outburn, Orlando Weekly, Beaver County Times. I haven't followed goth rock in years, but this seems like significant coverage to me. pburka (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The article has been up for almost three weeks now. I think it’s longer AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete While there are a few bits of coverage, there still isn't enough to solidify notability as there are no sources that the band have made the charts for their songs or albums. Fails to meet WP:BAND. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What about WP:NBAND#1? They don't need to chart if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. pburka (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a good point and you are right, if there are multiple coverage, then I suppose it'll suffice - even if there is a few to back it. It should still be enough so in that case, I'll change to Keep. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (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.