Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnarwolves

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. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 20:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarwolves

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

Was A7'ed a year a go, not much better except to announce an album that hasn't come out. Sources fail to establish notability due to not being true WP:RS material. Kerrang! is probably the strongest source, which is pretty weak for establishing notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and not because the article has me on the fence. Its just that the band gets a number of hits on Google news, but since none of the coverage seems to come from reliable/notable sources, I fail to see how it meets any of the points of WP:BAND. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gnarwolves are a very well known band in the UK alternative scene and have been featured in national publications such as Rock Sound, Kerrang and have been featured several times on BBC Radio 1 as well as playing on the main stage of Reading and Leeds Festivals Golf_is_super_cool

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Radio 1 session, international touring, plus playing at some pretty major festivals such as Reading & Leeds, probably makes them notable enough. There is coverage around, which isn't earth-shattering in its depth, but sufficient for sourcing, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Michig's findings, which appear to be just enough to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 18:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They qualify under WP:BAND as they have released a few EP's and the reference that Michig would support the content. I don't plan on paying to hear them anytime soon, but they would still meet notability guidelines in my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2014 (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.