Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyranahorse


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tyranahorse

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Rock band of questionable notability. Some local reviews, but little significant coverage. Google search shows mainly primary sources and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- I think it is not notable for me but its a very little coverage. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The band is new and has not yet (?) had the coverage to meet wp notability requirements Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * comment nb. Notability (music) requires that the band 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works'. I can't find any more than 2 reviews in the wp article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Perhaps just enough coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - questionable notability; appears to fail Notability (music) and General notability guideline due to the general lack of coverage. If the band has more profound impact and coverage in the future, the inclusion of the article could be justifiable. Chris (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - we are way too weak on deleting non-notable bands. I am making a stand. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (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.