- 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. Clear consensus that this band do not cross the notability bar. TerriersFan (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird Shapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Encyclopedic Mbch331 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's encyclopedic (we do cover band biogs), but as yet of inadequate notability. The Tom Robinson airplay is a good indication of this, but we really need to see released product or at least some notable live performances before they're enough for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No claim of notability in the article. JDDJS (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Did a little research. They do seem to be a working band. No albums, but a couple of songs available online. A blog mention or two. Notable? Not yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Closest to significant coverage I could find was in a local newspaper. At this time, subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 01:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.