Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitchblend

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchblend

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another (yawn) routine pop music band. If it survives, move it to Pitchblend (band). To most people pitchblend is a slight misspelling for pitchblende = uranium ore. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like a slam dunk A7 to me. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with TPH above, I see no reason to delete the content itself when a valid redirect target exists. Redirect to Pitchblende or Pitchblende (disambiguation). Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not agree with a speedy delete because of the existence of these sources [1][2], which at the least makes this subject worthy of some consideration here. Gongshow ^Talk 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drowned in Sound and All Music cover it. Dream Focus 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. References don't prove notability: one is an album review (every album gets reviewed), Allmusic is an all-inclusive database (that includes even the most obscure acts), and the last one is a self-reference. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of albums don't get reviewed in reliable sources. Many bands are not covered at all by Allmusic, which is certainly not all-inclusive. Neither would be good reasons to discount coverage in any case.--Michig (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I haven't found sources beyond the two listed above, but album reviews are a legitimate form of coverage (not excluded by criterion 1 of WP:BAND), and WikiProject Albums considers them reliable, so I do not see sufficient reason to dismiss them. Gongshow ^Talk 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unconvinced that the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Allmusic, for example, is a useful reference source but an album has to be obscure indeed not to get reviewed. The Drowned in Sound review majors on the album rather than the band. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:30, 14 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.